Tag Archives: IPCC

Who will be the next IPCC chairman?

The last time an IPCC chair position was up for grabs was in 2001, when things were not so politicized and aggressive, and there was not so much money and power on the table. Lobbying for this role is running hot and Tony Thomas compares the five men who are standing for this role. The position will be decided by October 8, and the new chairman will presumably be influential, or at least very visible, in Paris at the UNFCCC in early December. In the elections, there is one vote per country, so it is not so much about scientific credibility (and never was, think of Pachauri) but more about the powerful voting blocks that may form with small developing nations. Given that the new chairman will be in the media frequently and soon, this post is about being prepared. No  matter who wins, I think the IPCC is unsaveable and needs to be shut down or deprived of funding as soon as possible.   — Jo

Guest Post by Tony Thomas

Five candidates have put up their hand to become chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from October 8.

They are Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Belgium), Hoesung Lee (Korea), Thomas Stocker (Switzerland), Chris Field (USA) and Nebojsa Nakicenovic (Austria).

The elections will be at the meeting of the IPCC in Dubrovnic, Croatia, from October 5-8. Further nominations are unlikely but it is possible that ‘wild card’ candidates could be nominated at the meeting itself, with a vote 24 hours later.

Each of the 195 nation-state members of the IPCC have an equal vote by secret ballot. The vote of Vanuatu (pop 250,000) carries the same clout as the USA’s. This means candidates, and their national backers, will be courting the myriad small states for votes, using hard and soft diplomacy as occurred in 2001.

A win requires a simple majority. If no majority occurs on the first voting round, the top two candidates are put to a run-off vote.

The chair has been vacant since February when Dr Rajenda Pachauri, 75, resigned abruptly after a 29-year-old female analyst at his TERI thinktank in Delhi filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. Pachauri has since been on bail after Delhi police charged him with  molestation, stalking, sexual harassment  and criminal intimidation. The IPCC then appointed  Vice-Chair Ismail Elgizouli (Sudan) as acting chair until October 8.

The IPCC chair position and other top roles carry no salary but give  global prominence and status. Leaders’ home governments or institutions pick up the tab.

Van Ypersele and Hoesung Lee are two of the three current vice-chairs (Elgizouli is the third). Stocker is co-chair of Working Group 1 (the science); and Field is co-chair of Working Group 2 (Impacts and Adaptation). If the IPCC operated logically, the showdown would be a contest between the Swiss-backed and US-backed candidates, whose science credentials are overwhelming.

The Candidates

Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Austria, Prof of Energy Economics

Austria’s Nakicenovic is the least-known quantity. He has had IPCC roles for 25 years since the first IPCC report, mainly on energy chapters. In the latest 5th report, he was a Lead Author of Chapter 5 (Drivers, Trends and Mitigation) in WG3 (Mitigation).

He is Deputy Director General/Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and former Professor of Energy Economics at the Vienna University of Technology. He has authored more than 300 papers.

Van Ypersele, Belgium, Climate models & Antarctic sea ice

Van Ypersele, 58, is profiled at Quadrant Magazine. In a futuristic  tract van Ypersele wrote for Greenpeace in 2004, he predicted that in 2039, King William V of Great Britain (i.e. today’s Prince William), will die at age 57 from the West Nile virus as a result of the planet’s IPCC-predicted global warming.

He’s a physics PhD whose research was on the effect of global warming on Antarctic sea ice – an interesting topic, as  Antarctic sea ice is at a record extent for the satellite era. (Ypersele tweeted last October 7: “Scientists explain why record-high Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening”). He later specialised in climate modelling. He was a lead author  for the third IPCC report in 2001, and for the fourth report (2007) chaired plenaries for the three Working Groups.

Dr. Hoesung Lee, Korea, Economics

Dr. Hoesung Lee is the only Asian candidate and hence has some cachet with the anti-West blocs in the UN. The absence of a third-world candidate so far is surprising. Hoesung Lee earned his PhD in economics from Rutgers University, USA. He’s an energy specialist and has been prominent on many heavyweight Korean boards, including Hyundai, and in Korean government advisory roles. He’s been a prominent IPCC author since the third report in 2001.  He speaks fluent English although Lee’s style is rather bland.

Dr Thomas Stocker — Swiss, Climate models & Ice cores

Stocker is making  a sophisticated bid for the chair and has created a cool “Thomas Stocker for IPCC Chair” website.

One section, headed “Future of the IPCC”, sets out his goals, viz:

  •  Enhancing the engagement of experts from all regions will result in more comprehensive assessments.
  • Young scientists and experts in all IPCC teams will contribute new perspectives.
  • Rigorous procedures are the foundation of more timely and frequent information to policymakers.
  • Intensified outreach by the IPCC in regions most impacted by climate change will raise global awareness and advance solutions.

Stocker’s platform clearly reaches out to nondescript IPCC members for votes. The IPCC already practises affirmative action for third-world and female recruits: Stocker seems to be adding “youthfulness” to the selection process.

He writes, “As Chair of the IPCC, I will [he means ‘would’] exercise thoughtful and innovative leadership and carefully listen to alternative views and complementary ideas, with a firm commitment to consensus…

“As Chair of the IPCC, I will [would] ensure unequivocal, clear and understandable communication that is fully rooted in the rigorous scientific assessment and that incorporates information about uncertainties in an open and transparent way.”

He also claims to have his force-multiplier in the form of support from “a Technical Support Unit and a team of international experts at the University of Bern” – something other candidates may not be able to compete with. He is Professor of Climate and Environmental Physics there.

Stocker, Zurich-born, did his PhD in Natural Sciences at ETH Zurich. His research is largely climate models and ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. He has total faith in the IPCC’s “Atlas of Regional Climate Change Projections” for plotting changes in temperature and precipitation in all regions of the world for four emissions scenarios and for several time horizons between now and 2100 – “an incredible achievement”, he said.

In fact, the disclaimer to the Atlas says its output is not ‘forecasts’ but only projections conditional on climate forcing assumptions, shortcomings of models and ‘internal variability’ (p.1313).

Stocker is big on the ‘cumulative carbon budget’ concept for limiting warming risks, although any such budget relies on the yet-unquantified linkage between CO2 and temperature. At a Paris seminar on July 7, he said the ‘business as usual’ climate threat would stymie the UN’s sustainable development goals.

He attracted some controversy in late 2012 because of a letter he signed to lead authors in early 2010, after Climategate in 2009. He initially demanded it be kept secret, with a threat to the UK that publication could put IPCC/UK working arrangements at risk.

When disclosed, the secret IPCC letter was fairly anodyne but included a sentence, “The IPCC Chair, Vice-Chairs and Co-Chairs are working on a strategy to ensure that work on the AR5 is as effective as possible whilst at the same time emphasizing the robustness of the AR4 findings.”

This was viewed by sceptics as acknowledgement that on-going IPCC work was not open-minded but defensive of AR4. Stocker’s rival, Chris Field, is blunt about AR4’s shortcomings (see below).

Even in late 2013 and after a 16-year halt to warming, Stocker was still claiming the IPCC’s ‘simple key messages’ were:

  • “We know it’s happening
  • “We know who’s responsible” and
  • “We have a choice.”

He includes assertions about “the [assumed] near-linear relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and peak warming in the 21st century, the fact that with every 10 years of CO2 emissions rising at the current rate, about 0.5°C of climate target is being lost.” Again, this fails to mention the 18-year warming halt  in the face of very significant CO2 emissions increases.

Stocker in 2013 said climate trends required at least  30 year period, although the original 1990s warming scare was based on barely a decade of warming. He also claimed, improbably, that  “the projections of the global mean temperature were extremely good already back in 1990”. (The IPCC FAR 1990 predictions were wrong, below even the lowest possible estimate.)

Stocker received an interesting email from  East Anglia CRU’s Phil Jones [2440 in the Climategate series]: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.” Instead of expressing abhorrence at such tactics, and upholding the IPCC’s professed devotion to transparency, Stocker responded warmly that allowing access to climate data under laws prescribing ‘open access to environmental data’ would be a ‘perversion’. (This contrasts with the line of his competitor Field,  “I think that having an IPCC that is visible, transparent and has high quality leadership is going to be an important part of making sure that the science isn’t marginalised in any country… I do think there are lot of was to be more open and more ambitious in making the process inclusive and making the process transparent.” )

For some reason Stocker has included on his “Stocker for IPCC Chair” website artwork by “renowned graphics” artist Claude Kuhn, showing someone with his head nearly underwater as a result of sea level rises.

Chris Field — USA, Biologist

Biologist Chris Field is the candidate endorsed by the US Department of State, and is endorsed by White House science czar John P. Holdren as a ‘superb candidate’. Field has his own “Candidate for Chairman” website –- not as cool as Stocker’s — where he says he has experience in all three IPCC working  groups.

He says, “I am a scientist of the highest caliber. I have tackled difficult and important research challenges, publishing over 300 scientific papers that have been cited over 50,000 times.”

Field is the founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology and Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at Stanford University. His research involves field and laboratory studies of impacts of climate change, from the molecular to the global scale. He was prominent in writing the IPCC Special Report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” (2012). He’s won the Max Planck Research Award, the Heinz Award, and the Roger Revelle Medal.

He supports “new levels of integrity, relevance, and clarity in IPCC’s definitive assessments of knowledge on climate change.”  He also wants more user-friendly and multi-media graphic-designed styles to improve IPCC communication: “For future reports, the IPCC has compelling opportunities for enhancing the clarity of its products. Options include enhanced editing, use of technology, and effective structuring of reports. My goal is to help authors see the reports through the eyes of users.”

Field’s efforts towards communicating WG2 findings in AR5 extended to raising a million dollars personally for author travel, training, and outreach to the public.

Talking about IPCC prose, Field says “It’s like trying to write poetry, but with hundreds of people shouting suggestions in different languages. So it’s a real challenge, but I think it’s the most important challenge we face.”

In one extraordinary argument, Field says the IPCC should start with the summary for policy makers and work back from there to the science chapters:

“My feeling is that we should really start with the synthesis report, and figure out how to construct working group reports that feed into that in the most useful, integrated way. One of the questions – it’s been open for discussion in past reports – is, well, do you know what the questions are for the synthesis report until you’ve done the working group reports? And I think that now we have so much knowledge, and so much sophistication about the climate change issue, and, in fact, we can go the direction of designing a synthesis report, figuring out what angles we’re going to take, what are the question that are going to be explored, and then customising the working group reports so that they contribute to that set of goals in the most effective way.”

It is interesting that Field foresees IPCC outputs continuing indefinitely, after a flurry of third-party views that perhaps the IPCC reached its use-by date with its 5threport of 2013. Field elaborated: “I’m not sure the IPCC has decided to do big assessment reports. They’ve decided to keep the basic structure of the three working groups, with an increased focus on the synthesis report and with a series of special reports.”

He hints at improving on the lamentable PR snafus of his predecessor Pachauri, and stresses that he would manage well the delicate relationships between the chair and the IPCC 195-country panel of governments which calls the final shots on IPCC output. “I understand…the many options for phrasing any one finding,” he says, referring to the all-important synthesis reports crafted by the governments. The crafting can involve all-night wranglings  about what to say and what to leave out – such as the 5th report’s admission that 111 of 114 models are running too hot.

In a nice back-hander at Pachauri, Field says “In AR5 we were a lot more attentive to quality control than we were in the AR4”.

His interviewer Roz Pidcock in Paris July 8 seemed comically unaware the criminal charges against Pachauri. She asked Field specifically to detail Pachauri’s achievements as chair. Field ducks and bobs and merely says that every IPCC leader and participant is credit-worthy.

On scientists as advocates, he says (without addressing the objectivity/credibility problem): “Well, most scientists are parents, they’re teachers, they’re grandparents, they’re members of churches. The fact that someone has a PhD behind their name doesn’t mean that’s all they are. So when I speak as a representative of the IPCC, I tell the IPCC’s story. If I speak as a parent, I speak from my personal experience and my aspirations for my own children.”

On expressing his personal views if elected IPCC chair: “It would be irresponsible to ignore the strong identification that whenever I appear as IPCC chair, I will be identified as such, rather than as the parent of two lovely children.”

He is a fan of IPCC special ad hoc reports, and mentions oceans as a possible topic: “Oceans are kind of a new topic, in the IPCC, and one that’s richly interdisciplinary.”Odd that after 30 years climate work, he still sees oceans (71% of the earth’s surface) as ‘a new topic’. Field also mentions potential topics such as food security and desertification, neither of which are running the IPCC’s way.

He says increasing the engagement in the IPCC of “regional diversity, gender diversity, diversity of seniority” are “all really really important.” Such statements nullify the oft-repeated mantra that the IPCC comprises the world’s finest cohort of climate scientists.  Like Stocker, he seems to be appealing now to the youth vote.

IPCC  — other elections, candidates and voting

A large number of other IPCC positions are up for grabs. Candidates for slots on the IPCC governing Bureau are Thelma Krug (Brazil), Edvin Aldrian (Indonesia),  Serhat Sensov (Turkey),  Gregory Flato (Canada),  Sergev Semenov (Russia),  Carlo Carraro (Italy), Amjad Abdulla (Maldives, pop 350,000 ), and Cheik Mbow (Senegal).  Other candidates for non-specific Bureau slots are Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia),  Peter Adek Omeny (Kenya) and Fatma Betui  Bayguyen (Turkey). Australia, despite its prominence among IPCC authors, fields no candidate.

Voting for the routine Bureau positions involves quotas. IPCC members are arranged into blocs as follows: Africa, 54 countries with 7 guaranteed positions on the 33-member Bureau; Asia (32 countries, 6 positions); South America (12, 4); North/Central America (23, 4); SW Pacific (22 including Australia, 4); and Europe (52, 8). Note that  USA and Canada have no more seats than the Australasia/SEA axis.

Contrary to many people’s understanding, the Paris climate talks in December are under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), not the IPCC. The IPCC is a participant and the new IPCC chair will have a prominent role.


Abbreviations: WG2: Working Group 2. WG1: Working Group 1.

Rating: 8.2/10 (13 votes cast)

Who will be the next IPCC chairman?8.2 out of 10 based on 13 ratings 



Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ncnuhrt

31 comments to Who will be the next IPCC chairman?

  • #

    I guess not being ( almost ) refused visas for the next chairman could be a good start…..  ;-)

    Report this


  • #

    How come Tim ‘The Predictable’ Flannery isn’t on the list?

    Report this


    • #

      …Because he is “too Flannery” even for the IPCC! :D

      He (Chris Field) says increasing the engagement in the IPCC of “regional diversity, gender diversity, diversity of seniority”are “all really really important.”

      …There’s that Leftist bingo again!
      => “regional diversity”
      => “gender diversity”
      => “diversity of seniority”

      What the flying fire truck does “gender diversity” have anything to do with the climate?

      (The last excuse I heard regarding Climate Change and gender is that the rise in temp will make women get “in heat” and thus, will cause more to become single mothers. So we must give women’s groups (Feminists) more money under the banner of “gender budgeting”…Seriously, they don’t even hide they’re scammers any more! Its the callous audacity of which they speak that is most concerning! Its incoherent nonsense!)

      Look at this strategically…

      (1) US Govt
      => Left-leaning Administration. (Democrats)

      (2) US State Department
      => Filled with Obama appointees.
      ==> John Kerry => Secretary of State => Endorsed Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
      ==> Tony Blinken => Deputy Secretary => Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Obama.
      ==> Heather Higginbottom => Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources => Served as Policy Director of the Obama for America campaign.

      (3) John Holdren => White House science czar
      ==> Known supporter of Democrats.
      ==> Advises for Obama.
      ==> Advised for President Bill Clinton. (As one of the science advisors from 1994 to 2001).
      ==> His academic background focuses on the causes and consequences of global environmental change, population control and energy technologies and policies.

      My point?

      * A State Dept with Leftists in leadership and management positions. (Who were appointed by a Leftist Govt).
      * A science czar who has a history of advising for Leftist Govts and is a known supporter of Left-leaning party.
      * Both endorse a Leftist-speaking, climate-change-supporting biologist for the leadership of the IPCC.
      * …Which itself is pushing a Leftist issue that is Climate Change for its own existence.

      So Lefties in power and decision-making positions endorse other Lefties for the leadership position in an international organisation that promote a modern Leftist issue.
      (Which the Right don’t agree with, and the general public don’t care about.)

      …All on the American taxpayer!

      The difference between these guys and Flannery is that we got Flannery out of the taxpayer’s trough and he is now forced to pander to the public for money. (Crowd-funding).

      They say Australia is the “lucky country”. No kidding! …We didn’t just dodged a bullet, but evaded a barrage of BS! (While USA is neck-deep in debt-drowning nonsense! Until the next Election.)

      Report this


      • #

        Well, we’re not that far removed or immune to following in the footsteps of the US/Europe. The welfare society (or push for such) is as strong in Australia as anywhere in the world.

        Not a day passes by when I don’t read in the news of another group demanding taxpayer money for some ‘major’ problem that ‘only’ government (taxpayer) money can solve.

        The latest I read was a demand for money to prevent the demise of Kookaburras, et al, the former which seem to be laughing at such suggestions every morning and evening in our neck of the woods.

        Report this


      • #

        John Holdren – advocate of all sorts of bizarre stuff, including planetary govt and forced sterilizations to control population …..

        Quotes below from a book he co-authored – “Eco-Science”


        Sterilizing humans through adding drugs to the water as long as it doesn’t harm animals , but humans are OK to control :

        “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. “

        Advocating a global ( Socialist ) govt :

        “Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

        The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”


        Report this


  • #
    John McLean

    I see a bunch of liars lining up for the big prize. It’s a case of having five dishonest people and having to choose one.

    The better-known candidates all claim that human activity caused the warming (non-existent for the last 18 years) but none have a shred of evidence. The reason is simple – the IPCC has never had the evidence to support its claims about a human influence on climate.

    The IPCC’s charter directs it to investigate the risk of any human influence and after 1995 it was directed to support the UNFCCC, so saying that a human influence was negligible and only localised due to UHI and land-use changes would be suicide for the organisation.

    It’s all a house of cards built on the bullying and alarmist publicity of the UNFCCC.

    Report this


  • #

    The Belgium, Swiss and USA candidates would be the worst for all purpose particular the USA candidate who is beholden to the socialists in the Obama camp. The Belgian has made some idiotic comments about climate. It looks like the Korea might be the best as he has had experience with private enterprise, eg on the board of Hydundai (which started off as a cement company before going into ship and car building, and appears to understand economics but then the Korean head of the UN has been captured by the socialist alarmist (but luckily South Korea is more pragmatic and operates some of the best and safest Nuclear reactors in the world).

    [snip] On the other hand the Austrian school of economics should be studied by more world leaders, finance ministers and government treasurers. If he follows that line of economics he could have a positive influence.

    Report this


  • #

    So two economists, a Natural Science PhD, a Biologist none of them actually anything like Meteorologists. The IPCC was setup by the World Meteorological society, clearly to coordinate action between governments on issues of meteorology. The only one who has anything like the hard science qualifications is Ypersaly, a Belgian physicist apparently but one who appears to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, kangaroos in the back paddock or two coupons short of a toaster. Still they cannot be worse than the 27 year rule of railway engineer Pachauri who travelled 360,000km per year lecturing on the evils of air travel. Can they?

    Shut down this silly, pointless, fantasy IPCC. The damage it has done is immense. The good it has done is zero.

    As for the UN Framework group run by the daughter and sister of ex Presidents of Costa Rica, a woman who openly wants to overthrow world governments for a communist model based on China, none of this has anything to do with climate. Australia should not attend Paris. It is not even the IPCC. The Green vote in Australia is 14%, but it is totally aligned with Labor anyway, so why not stop people attending the Paris commune on government or local government salaries? Make a stand against Climate insanity.

    Report this


    • #

      Trying to understand this “physicist”. Anyone who believes that mankind has increased CO2 above 4% is in denial of simple physics, so it is a puzzle.

      “I was as much interested by human issues and development issues than by scientific issues such as astronomy and physics..I was about to direct my career towards astrophysics I decided .. to specialise myself on climate change instead.

      ..my first degree was obtained doing a thesis on the effect of CO2 on global climate with .. very simplified climate models. Then I specialised myself in the study of sea ice and the ocean circulation around Antarctica, and went to the US .. and did my PhD thesis on the effect of CO2 warming on sea ice and ocean circulation around Antarctica

      So he is an admitted activist who has built his entire career on CO2 drive Climate Change rather than physics. So any suggestion that CO2 is not the reason for Global Warming is a denial of his life’s work.

      He needs to examine whether the CO2 in the air is from ancient fossil fuels in the first place. It isn’t. So whether CO2 produces any warming at all is quite irrelevant. There is nothing governments can do about CO2. Henry’s law controls CO2 levels. This man is a much a physicist as Tim Flannery is Australia’s leading Climate Scientist.

      Report this


  • #
    el gordo

    As Jo said the IPCC should be deprived of funds and shut down, but this won’t happen for a short while, a couple of years at least.

    The five candidates are aliens, so they won’t be getting my vote.

    Report this


  • #

    It should be explained to whatever reptile that gets the position that “up for grabs” isn’t a literal description of what’s on the table….on or off. ;)

    Report this


  • #

    Why bother with a real person when it is obvious that the IPCC has access to the expertize to computer model the required correct ‘person’.

    Report this


    • #

      Are we talking A.I. computer development or A.I. the result of a jerk that develops the ultimate vapid model?

      Report this


      • #

        Not just vapid but a whole new paradigm in virtualized vapidity unseen until now. With new and upgraded positive feedback parsing, improvements to the lexiconic library of semantic sophistry, the passing of the future returns here, now!
        It heralds an open era of closing yesterday’s failures whilst enabling tomorrow’s advances in closely tied circumlocution argumentation. So embrace of de-yesterdaying of tomorrow today! With the exciting possibilities super-vapid technology.

        Please note all source code is proprietary software, and property of the UN and and subject to NSA/EU/Chinese top-secret regulations.

        Report this


  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    And the carbon foot print of this meeting, prior horse trading, and what ever — will be what?

    Report this


  • #

    Where’s Kevin Rudd? The IPCC needs a Moral High Groundist for when the seas rise, shirley?

    Report this


  • #

    Actually, I’m available, and I could do with a part-time job to supplement my pension.

    Report this


  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    It is interesting that Climate Change has become a really hot topic, in the Pacific, over the past three or four months.

    This is aided and abetted of course, by several severe weather events. But these were not at all unusual for the region, for this time of year, but are now caused by climate change, for some reason.

    The Chinese have been very active in providing assistance to various Pacific nations, for several years, and that is probably just normal geopolitics. But what is different, is the “sudden” interest shown by South Korea, and for some reason, the European Union (as a bloc), in also “providing assistance” to Pacific Nations.

    The Pacific represents between 17 and 20 votes (depending how Dependencies are viewed), and at least 15 of those would be vary grateful for promises of development grants, or infrastructure investments.

    I am not going to pick a winner – I have been around too long to do that. But if you are making predictions, you need to take this into account.

    Report this


    • #
      Peter C

      This is aided and abetted of course, by several severe weather events

      That might be a response to cyclone Raquel, east of the Solomon Islands, which was declared a cyclone by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, when the estimated central surface pressure dropped to 998Hpa!

      More frequent and more severe cyclones!

      We had an east coast low south of Victoria a few days ago which brought rain to Victoria and snow to southern Queensland. It had an estimated central pressure of 990 Hpa (not a cyclone).

      Report this


    • #

      Wouldn’t that be extreme irony Rereke, a Chinese candidate. Geopolitics being the board game that it is.

      Report this


  • #

    The more fanatical they are the less credibility their fanatical ravings of these academics lunes will have with the public.

    The more sane, sober and evidence based (i.e. sceptical) the less they will do.

    There is an argument that a certain percentage of academics will always be lunes – and it is better to focus their energies on something like global warming where governments rightly just string them along year after year …

    Report this


  • #

    Field says the IPCC should start with the summary for policy makers and work back from there to the science chapters …

    Reversing the null hypothesis – a much favoured tactic, since it avoids answering any direct questions on empirical evidence

    Well, here’s an hypothesis:

    Michael Jackson was the second coming. Now you prove he wasn’t

    [See how easy it is to do]

    Report this


  • #

    Impressive list. Yes sir.

    Van Ypersele: “in 2039, King William V of Great Britain (i.e. today’s Prince William), will die at age 57 from the West Nile virus as a result of the planet’s IPCC-predicted global warming.”
    . . .
    Though it is hard to beat a fool-proof prediction like this, a dark horse to consider, Sir Bob Geldof:

    “Bob Geldof has claimed that the Earth as we know it could end by 2030 thanks to the ravages of climate change.
    We may not get to 2030.”
    . . .
    If only the next 3 weeks winning lotto numbers were also included as evidence of their numerical predictive abilities.
    I could easily spend a billion before the predicted climate apocalypse, confident in their soothsaying abilities.

    If only …

    Report this


    • #

      Bob Geldof was the first Kim Kardashian. Apart from one good piece of music he is epitomises publicity porn in the service of his own deification.

Did Pachauri Grope 97% of Women?

Actually, only five have complained so far, but why not apply warmist statistical methods to allegations of roving hands, lurid texts and an obsession with ‘voluptuous breasts’ that have seen the world’s premier alarmist resign? One possible defence: climate change makes bureaucrats hot to trot

pachuri handsThis is a message allegedly sent in mid-October, 2013, by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, to a 29-year-old female staffer at his TERI think-tank: “Here I am sitting and chairing an IPCC meeting and surreptitiously sending you messages. I hope that tells you of my feelings for you.”

The IPCC meeting was the 37th Plenary Session, at the Sheraton in the seaside resort of Batumi, Georgia. It was attended by 229 politicians and officials from 92 countries, plus the usual conservation and activist hangers-on and free-loaders. TERI stands for The Energy and Resources Institute, which has 1200 staff.  Pachauri, 74, has been Teri’s Director General  for 34 years, almost since its inception. He has also led the IPCC for 13 years.

The TERI staffer, 43 years his junior, was so much on Pachauri’s  mind  that he allegedly continued to pursue her until she filed a 33-page harassment case last February 13. He resigned abruptly from the IPCC on February 24.

The emissions-reduction campaign sponsored by the IPCC is currently a $US1 billion-a-day exercise. But obviously Pachauri wasn’t taking it all that seriously in the five-day Georgia talk-fest.

After the event, the IPCC put out a press release saying Pachauri “opened the session on Monday morning noting the need to view climate change in the larger context, including its impacts on future generations and the planet, and emphasizing the IPCC’s role in mobilizing the world’s best scientific talent and bringing climate change to the public’s attention. He stressed that the IPCC’s work is more relevant, robust and reliable than ever to policy makers.”

Let’s hope he was fully focused on that stuff, and not on his text blitz to a reluctant “Classical Indian Beauty”.

The IPCC conference went on to ratify two greenhouse gas inventory protocols, and start “initial discussions on mapping the future of the IPCC”. In other words: Don’t laugh, the IPCC is all seriousness.

Pachauri  in his resignation letter brags that he has led the IPCC for 13 years, almost half the IPCC’s life (he began work for the IPCC as a lead author in 1995). He spoke about IPCC workers’ efforts as “a priceless asset which forms the foundation of its unmatched contributions to global society” as the IPCC “always scaled new heights of excellence”. He says, “It was a blessing and a rare moment of glory for the scientific community and me when I received the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC in 2007.” He’d really meant to quit  after the Fifth IPCC  synthesis report was published in late 2014, “but close friends and colleagues advised me against that action…For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

He went on that for reasons not stated, he can no longer give the IPCC his full attention and hence would resign on February 24: “The greatest joy of working as an elected official of the IPCC lies in not receiving any monetary compensation in return, which elevates this mission to a level of sublime satisfaction.”

There is no recognition in this letter of his numerous gaffes such as blasting an Indian glaciologist, Vijay Raina, as a “voodoo” scientist for correctly noting the IPCC’s 2007 melting-Himalaya-glaciers howler; he concedes that he is motivated by religion rather than science; and his humble-brag about working without pay is ridiculous, given the perks and global adulation he enjoyed as chairman. That includes at least 23 honorary doctorates (e.g. from UNSW) and honors like “The Green Crusader  Award” (Mumbai); Aztec Eagle (Mexico); White Rose of Finland;  and Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star (Japan).

Pachauri deposed to the courts this month that after being notified of the harassment complaint, he suddenly realised that his social accounts had been hacked and were used to send objectionable matter to his TERI staffer. He had never authored such texts, Pachauri insisted. Indeed, he had filed complaints with police that very same day about the purported hacking. but the staffer was unmoved. Although he had let her know about the hacking, she still planned to go public in the press. “The effect of the publication would be to give success to the conspiracy which is aimed to destroy the reputation, standing, goodwill and repute of the plaintiff (Pachauri),” he deposed. “The plaintiff (Pachauri) is being targeted by various vested interests.”

He also told the courts: “My computer resources including my email ids, mobile phone and WhatsApp messages have been hacked and that unknown cyber criminals have gone ahead and have unauthorisedly accessed my computer resources and communication devices and further committed various criminal activities.”

This led to a press-gagging order, shortly thereafter lifted by the Delhi High Court. Granted bail, the court also barred him from leaving India or entering his office while police investigate the accusations.

Police have been investigating Pachauri under four sections of the Indian Penal Code. These concern sexual assault, harassment, stalking, and criminal intimidation/threats. If convicted, Pachauri could face maximum prison sentences of two, three, or seven years.

On Monday Feb 22, a New Delhi court granted Pachauri protection from arrest until Thursday. Pachauri’s legal team then said Pachauri had been hospitalised with cardiac issues and a urinary tract infection. But neither in statements by the IPCC that week, nor in Pachauri’s  resignation letter   on Tuesday, were health problems mentioned.

Clearly, this  hacking of his email, phone, Whatsapp and social networking accounts must have been an elaborate and sustained activity since September, 2013, but undetected by Pachauri. It would be a world-record hack in variety and form. And yet the hackers could  think of no more damaging work than inventing love-notes to a junior female staffer. It might have been more damaging to have released his entire email output, a la Climategate.

Pachauri’s hacking allegation must also include the forgery of his handwriting since the staffer has turned in such a note to police. And even assuming the hacking and hand-writing forger succeeded, the staffer’s own testimony of Pachauri propositioning and touching her is outside the scope of any hacking.

The woman’s oral testimony to police took more than 90 minutes.

“On many occasions, Dr Pachauri forcibly grabbed my body, hugged me, held my hands, kissed me and touched my body in an inappropriate manner,” the woman’s statement says.

dirty ol' warmist

The woman started work with TERI on September 1 , 2013. Within a week Pachauri was texting her at 9.22pm and she was telling  him to back off.

He then wrote: “I shall try to suppress my human feelings, and live with a sad restraint on my words and actions. “



The alleged texts include:

Sep  17, 2013 – Pachauri:  “I never want to make you uncomfortable even if it requires curbing my own instincts. “

Sep 17 – complainant:  “I can’t and don’t wish to be just a pretty face in your office. That hurts and is a bit demoralizing. I’m much inexperienced and nowhere near where you are. I will never do anything out of line with my conscience or take advantages…”

Oct 1 – Pachauri: “Just to prove to you how much I love you, I shall go on a fast after the cricket match tomorrow. I will break the fast only when you tell me that you believe I love you with sincerity and unfathamable depth.”

Oct 1 – complainant:  “I do believe you and you know it but I felt a little isolated. Please you are not to grab me and/or kiss me.”

10:21 pm  – Pachauri: All right we have our respective perceptions which differ, and we can live with them and also let live. Perhaps some day you would know how sweet and sublime my feelings for you are! I shall not call off my fast till you fully believe that sacred truth.

10:28 pm – Pachauri: All right! I’ve got the message. I wish you would see the difference between something tender and loving and something crass and vulgar. You obviously don’t! So I shall slink away and withdraw! Farewell my sweet [the complainant’s name]. But I insist on the fast just to hear you say that you believe I really love you !

10:35 pm – Pachauri: Besides I want to punish myself for alienating you!

10:36 pm – Pachauri: And losing the most wonderful girl I’ve ever met!



Oct 2 – Pachauri: “I hope you are cool and far from nerve-wrecked.  If it is any comfort at all I want to assure you that I love you in the most sublime, wholesome and genuine way. Never would I do anything to you or for you that you don’t consider supremely beautiful!”

Oct 2 – complainant: “I am a little less nerve-wrecked now and I hope you eat something now. Have a good trip to Poland Dr Pachauri and I’ll see you next week.”



Oct  10 – Pachauri: “Yes, I would love you physically, only because I love you in all the other aspects. I, there,  would find it difficult to touch you except to kiss your hand.”

Oct  10 –  Pachauri: “I find it now very difficult to hug you. What haunts me are your words from the last time that I ‘grabbed’ your body. That would apply to someone who would want to molest you. I loved you in the soul, mind, heart…”


Nov 14 – Pachauri: “You came to me at the loss of your earlier job as a measure of desperation…In the context of your injury, what faith have you shown in me? You have been going to the gym against my explicit advise…[sic] Even you must know that even if I don’t marry you, I am yours for life. “


Nov 24 –  complainant: “If you have the hots for someone you do. It doesn’t mean you love them. Love is different. Sex is…beautiful and enjoyed only when you are with the right person. I can’t love everyone. You have had two one-night stands. I have only gone to bed with whom I have dated, not just had sex with someone I have had one dinner with…”





Sanjeev Sabhlok, an Indian civil servant now working in Melbourne, has blogged,  “It is frightening that a staggering number of men would have deep faith in a woman’s fear of social stigma and hence assume that they won’t make an ordeal like this public … It is true, reporting sexual violence is traumatic, defeating and tiring and it’s a choice that is very tempting to skip…The young TERI research associate has taken a firm step in the right direction.”

Adding to Pachauri’s woes, a second woman and her lawyers told the Calcutta Telegraph on February 22 that Pachauri at TERI had been a serial harasser of women staff with touchings and contacts they considered loaded with sexual innuendos.  There now appears to be five TERI women complaining, two named and three speaking not-for-attribution.

The second woman’s testimony relates to when she worked at TERI in 2005.

Her  complaint appears below:

A sexual harasser then ten years back, a sexual harasser today. He did it to me and others then. He has done it to her and possibly others, now.

His physical advances and sexual innuendoes and acts, often reduced to as “inappropriate behaviour”, have been common knowledge and corridor gossip.

Of the most common and public sight of such behaviour by him that many of us vividly recall was performed on the floor where his office is located and is home to a manicured roof-top garden and badminton court. These evening sessions would often draw to a close with high-tea, and many a times with him lifting a female employee as if they were little girls. Some would run away seeing him approach them. A few coyly obliged. Some cringed, or muttered cuss words under their breath.

Many of us have heard him talk about how he could run, play cricket and score run seven in his ripe age: the sub-textual allusion was his physical strength or, really, virility.

Privately, many of us had undergone one, some or all of this experience/s: telephone calls at personal mobile number during non-office hours and holidays; inquiries about personal life with “boyfriend”, “husband”; invitations for wine and dinners, and hand holding, hugs or kisses. Sometimes, he would call me by a “nickname”, a derivative of my official name.

Once, he called me to his room to discuss some work but picked up a coffee-table book. He thumbed the pages of what was an architectural design catalogue with designs of swimming pools and gardens. I was still waiting for where he was going with it. What followed was startling: he promised to get me a certain Foundation’s pool membership if I would care to join him for swims on the weekends.

I remember suggesting to some colleagues, including the women who comprised the H.R. team, about doing a joint petition, an internal complaint.  Seeing that the women at H.R. were themselves subjected to such harassment did not instill much confidence in the exercise but it would at least go on record….

Having mustered some courage, I complained to the then administrative head, essentially the side-kick to Big Boss. Side-kick refused to believe me, saying that I may have misread his warmth, that such things had never been reported, requested me to end the matter there and started to show me a meditative, self-help magazine that he subscribed to.

Around that time, I gained admission at a university abroad. Since I quit the organisation, I was relieved that this was the end of this ugly episode.

Not quite. When he saw my resignation letter, he threatened: “From the airport to the University you are headed to, I have friends at every step. Let’s see if you manage to leave the country.”

All this happened ten years back. So why am I speaking up now?  I had little courage then, but it feels like I have more now…

Please read this public testimony as my attempt to reach out to you, anonymous complainant, as well as all women who may have at some point or the other been subjected to similar, or less or more harassment by him.

In solidarity.

Another former employee who did not want to be named said that such inappropriate behaviour was commonplace at the office, and the women working in the director-general’s office — mostly researchers, scientists and academics — were referred to as the “fifth-floor girls” by the office grapevine.

At one point of time or another, the employee claimed, these women would get calls on their personal mobile numbers, enquiries on their personal lives, invitations for wine and dinners, handholding and kisses.

All these women, including the complainant, would have a nickname given to them by him — a derivative of their official name, the testimonial claimed.

A sycophantic piece by journalist Gabrielle Walker in Nature in 2007 gave this vignette of  TERI/IPCC leader Pachauri, about how “his staff love him”:

He doesn’t keep his work ethic to himself. Everyone at TERI is expected to show just as much dedication. Arrive even a few minutes late and you are likely to be greeted with a dry “good afternoon”, whether you clocked off at six or at midnight. Do it several days in a row and you will receive an e-mail from the director-general reminding you of the values of hard work and discipline. And his staff love him for it. He was a hero to his employees long before the rest of the world took note. Although he has begged them to call him by his name, he is always “Sir”, even when he’s not in the room.

Nature itself gushed in an editorial:

“It is easy to miss the energy beneath [Pachauri’s] calm assertiveness — an energy that, although now tied firmly to ‘the cause’, surely predates it. Five years ago both his detractors and those supporting him under a misapprehension missed that passion, and the get-things-done focus that it powers.”

Pachauri in 2010 published a novel Return to Almora in which his alter ego, Dr Sanjay Nath, stars as a randy ecologist.

In the   first chapter, an American woman undresses and slips under the sheets: “It’s cold, Sandy. Come and keep me warm…

“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’ ”

Most chapters include a steamy scene: “He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts. He felt very excited, but wanted to enjoy exploring her body before he attempted to enter her. But suddenly, it was all over.”

When Sanjay is teaching women yoga, he enjoys “the sensation of gently pushing Susan’s shoulders back a few inches, an action that served to lift her breasts even higher”.

Sanjay and friends queue when young to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”


Sadly for Sanjay, writes Dr Pachauri, “the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started”.

A friend of Susan is taken to a motel by Sanjay but only after he has fondled her breasts – “which he just could not let go of” – inadvertently sounding the car horn at the same time.”

In the absence of women, the author has his protagonist masturbating, stealing a red handkerchief from a passenger on a train for the purpose: “He pulled it out gently, imagined Pooja naked and ready by his side, and got busy with his right hand.”


The IPCC is supposed to be the gold standard for the science of saving the planet. Perhaps it’s become more the red-handkerchief standard. #



*  In 1996 in a civil case involving defendant TERI and a contractor seeking damages, Judge K. Ramamoorthy in the Delhi High Court said Pachauri and his two co-directors “have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits”. The judge said that since the three were claiming lack of knowledge of a relevant contract, “I am afraid they demonstrate themselves totally unequal to the task entrusted to them.” He continued, “And I am afraid that the affairs and the efficient management of the Centre are not safe in the hands of officers like Mr K.K. Bhatnagar, Dr R.K. Pachauri and Mr Dinesh Mehta and they had ignored that the officers have to function as a public functionaries within the parameters of the Constitution.”


Within a year of this judicial accolade, the Asian group in the UN voted Pachauri in to the IPCC as their vice-chair, and in 2002 the corrupt and dictator-led majority of governments in the UN voted him in as IPCC chair.

Shooting Santa to Save the World


Shooting Santa to Save the World

If you ever doubted that warmism endorses a preening, totalitarian disdain for the lives and rights of others, take up a copy of “Climate Change” by graphic novelist Philippe Squarzoni, who imagines how virtuous it would be to go berserk with an assault rifle in a shopping mall. And yes, he’s not joking

smoking gunA top scientist of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Jean Jouzel, is lauding a comic publication which has the heroine gunning down three Santa Clauses in a supermarket with a military assault rifle. The realistically-drawn massacre in Climate Changed by Philippe Squarzoni (Abrams, New York 2014) is meant to symbolise the need to reduce consumerism and CO2 emissions.

The book was written a year before the Nairobi Westgate shopping mall massacre in September, 2013, in which gunmen killed or wounded 240 people in the name of Islam. But the fictional massacre in the cause of reducing CO2 emissions is retained in this year’s English translation.

The book, 480 pages and 1.2kg, is in the ‘graphic novel’ genre, now a serious literary form. The book won the Jury Prize at the Lyon Graphic Novel Festival in 2012. (A graphic novel, Maus, by New Yorker cartoonist Art Spigelman,  won a Pulitzer in 1992).

In the massacre sequence, Camille, the  beautiful partner of the comic’s hero, Squarzoni himself, arrives at the “Nuclear Power Christmas Market” with what looks like a Belgian FN assault rifle slung over her shoulder.

The next frame (below) shows her in the supermarket aisle amid shopping trolleys, lifting the sights to her face.

santa must die1

The caption reads: “Today, choice about energy issues has been stolen from the people. The decisions are all in the hands of politicians or big multinationals. Economic motivations prevail over environmental needs.”

Frame three (below) shows she is sighting on three men in Santa costumes, one holding bottles of Coca-Cola, and another taking a gift-wrapped parcel from a shelf. The caption: “We produce more so we can consume more.”


Next frames,  she opens fire and the Santas scream in death agonies as bullets rip into their bodies, with blood spattering. She continues firing as they start collapsing to the ground, while a stream of  ejected shellcases tumble in the foreground and Cokes and Christmas parcels fly  in the air. One Santa lifts his right hand as if to shield himself.

Their suits are riddled with bullets and gore continues to spout. The bland caption for this bloody mayhem reads: “On the demand side, it’s up to individuals, households, and local communities to evaluate their own needs themselves, with an eye to conservation.”

The final frame shows shows Camille and author Squarzoni standing over the corpse of one Santa, Camille still training her rifle on him. The caption reads: “Making conservation a positive factor in the future would require a huge change in political direction.”

Their couple’s massacre is not followed by any repercussions as the book goes on to lament the Copenhagen summit failure and excoriate “climate deniers”, who are drawn as dung beetles pushing a ball of excreta with their hind legs.

The IPCC’s Jouzel has been

  • A vice-chair of the IPCC’s prestigious Working Group 1 (“The Physical Science Basis”) since 2008.
  • A drafting author, WG1 Summary for Policy-Makers of the 5th IPCC report
  • Review editor, sea level chapter, 5th report.
  • Bureau member, WG1, 4th report, 2007.
  • A drafting author, Summary for Policy-Makers, WG1 4th report.
  • Lead author, WG1, 4th report
  • Review editor, Paleoclimate chapter, 4th report.
  • French expert delegate to the IPCC 2nd and 3rd reports.

On the book’s back cover,   Jouzel writes,

“What a marvellous way to convey the knowledge accumulated by our scientific community … I am truly admiring of Philippe Squarzoni’s great scholarship on all facets of the climate problem…An extremely well-documented work – which is, of course, essential for the perception of the message that it delivers. But its principal merit is, in fact, in the quality of the narrative and the art.”

Earlier, the book’s Santa figures personify fossil-fuel use and smoke British American Tobacco cigarettes.

Author  Squarzoni damns sceptics as “relying on scientists who worked for the tobacco industry in the 1980s to put the science in doubt.” This theme is similarly promoted by Naomi Oreskes in her 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, now being made into a Hollywood film by Sony as something of a sequel to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

I googled for IPCC climate scientists who have taken  benefits from Big Tobacco. Who should  turn up after five minutes but Squarzoni’s guru, Jean Jouzel himself,  a recipient of a 1992 climatology prize from  the Philip Morris tobacco corporation.

It gets better, or worse. Squarzoni’s second-ranked advisory source is Herve Le Treut, a coordinating lead author in the 5th IPCC report. It’s taxing my schoolboy French, but under his “Prix et distinctions”, one notices, “Prix Philip Morris (1992)”.  Merde, alors!

Nature complained in April, 2001, that the German arm of Philip Morris had been awarding annual research prizes since 1983 without controversy: Around 100 researchers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have received the Philip Morris prize…,” it noted. “This year’s winners, announced last week, each take home around US$100,000.”

Even if not identical, the Philip Morris Prizes that went to Jouzel and Le Treut clearly had a family connection to the US$100,000 Philip Morris Prizes offered in the German context.

Jouzel blurbs about the comic book, “Great scholarship on all facets of the climate problem…a true feast”. The book  extensively features Jouzel as a talking head and wise dispenser of IPCC scientific platitudes. He is described on the front and back covers and in the source-list as sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — which is flat-out wrong as the IPCC itself in late 2012 banned members from making such claims:

“The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.” Pulp the book, publisher.

The book’s narrative is how Squarzoni educates himself about climate by interviewing nine experts, who broadly compete to push catastrophism. Three are IPCC sorts. Another three, for some reason, are all eco-economists associated at a high level with a French group called ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Aid to Citizens).   To only select three economists of that ilk is bizarre. Another of the artist’s talking heads is an eco-journalist with Le Monde, the author of European best-seller  How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth.  The eighth source is a French nuclear industry scientist (France gets three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear). The ninth source is a corker, Helene Gassin, who ran Greenpeace Energy campaigns in France for eight years. In 2001 her activists scaled the Exxon Mobil building in Paris during rush hour, and Gassin announced, “Greenpeace is going to give warnings in the entire world to companies who support this [anti-Kyoto] decision.”

The book contains almost 100 pages of talking-head advice from these impartial sources. Unusually for a comic, the book has a comprehensive index so that its, ahem, “science” can be easily looked up, e.g. “ice melting, acceleration of, 113, 200-203”.

Under “climate change, denial of, 414-19” we discover that the Melting-Himalaya-Glaciers howler in IPCC 2007 was “the only [error] in the 3000 page report” (the truth: nine errors on that single page alone!) and that it came from a mere typo,  the year “2035” for the glaciers all to melt, instead of “2350”.

IPCC chief Pachauri and UN boss Ban Ki-Moon hardly called in the auditors (the InterAcademy Council) on the basis of one typo in its 3000-page report.

This reality was this: The IPCC took the year 2035 correctly, but unwisely, from a popular Indian science magazine which had done the inverting of 2350 to 2035, and invented and garbled its own material. The IPCC also pretended its source was a WWF report (also garbled) and not the magazine. The IPPC page and its genesis were a mockery of science and scientific rigor.

The porkies in Climate Changed follow thick and fast. The IAC, the author claims, “concluded that the work methods were solid and the conclusions of the IPCC were correct.” In fact the IAC concluded there were significant shortcomings in every major step of the IPCC process. (p13). It also said at the outset that the report “does not examine climate change science or the validity of its representation in the assessment reports.”

We also discover that Climategate’s famous ‘trick’ email of Phil Jones was just a method of splicing proxy and real temperature data “to make the results more accurate”.  In fact, the infampous ‘trick’s’ purpose was to conceal that the proxy series was worthless.

Climategate, Squarzoni concludes, was a smear campaign, “just a series of trumped-up scandals, slander and false accusations.”  He scoffs at a supposed internet myth that global warming stopped in 1998, and says it arose by comparing a hot year 1998 with a cool one in 2008. (The IPCC people now acknowledge the 15-18 year halt and are arguing about what’s caused it).

Among these 480 pages one finds every example of green zealot mythology. I’ll cite just one: the magical ‘climate refugees’. The index helpfully takes one to page 239, where it is stated that 250 million people could be victims of coastal flooding and 60 million could migrate from arid zones by 2020 (hey, we’re nearly there!). The cartoon frame shows a line of climate refugees trudging forward with bundles on their backs.

A boatload of people departs from a tropical island: “From the Maldives to Kiribati to the Carteret Islands, people are already fleeing the rising sea level” [no they’re not, Maldives is building long-term tourist infrastructure]. “It is estimated that there are already 25 to 50 million eco-refugees fleeing from drought, hurricanes [huh?], floods…and their migration is accelerating,” the comic insists. The frame shows an Arab-looking climate refugee sheltering under an umbrella from global warming.

What seems like 150 pages of frames are authorial self-indulgence, showing Squarzoni himself agonizing over his personal task to save the planet. He gets offered a trip to Laos for an artist’s residency, but this will add to jet-trail pollution. After soul-tearing deliberation across many pages, he rejects the trip. The epiphany of Saint Squarzoni is marred by his incidental jet-setting here and there, including sight-seeing to New York.

Being the product of French intellectuals, perhaps the book’s conclusion  — that Western democracies must be  transformed into a Greens’ playground — is no surprise. The French, it must be remembered, also regard Jerry Lewis as a comedic genius..

The author’s cited sources think  Al Gore’s  emission-cutting prescriptions don’t go far enough. One of Squarzoni’s quoted sages, journalist Herve Kempf, chin resting on right fist, intones, “People like Al Gore are very sincere. Their knowledge and concern are real. But all they promise as a solution is “green recovery”; new technology, hybrid cars and so on…” Even Obama is a green wimp: he “stays within the ideology of economic growth, and that will not resolve the problem.”

Squarzoni concludes lugubriously, “At the end of the day, climate skeptics were able to undermine the [Copenhagen] consensus on global warming.”

In technical skill, Squarzoni’s illustrations are first-rate, drawing on cinematic and advertising styles while avoiding formulaic Manga-style visual cliches.  Publisher  Abrams — “The art of books since 1949” –  meant well. Its blurb says of the book: “This groundbreaking work provides a realistic, balanced view of the magnitude of the crisis that An Inconvenient Truth only touched on.” It adds, “Climate Changed is printed on FSC-certified paper from responsibly-managed, environmentally-sound sources.” But Abrams could hardly say no Santas were hurt in production of the book.

UPDATE (it gets worse): Climate Changed New York publisher Abrams has issued a “Teacher’s Guide to Climate Changed for 15-18 year olds. It was written in June, 2014, by  Peter Gutierrez, curriculum developer and graphic novels expert for the US National Council of Teachers of English.

The guide does not discuss whether the supermarket Santa slaughter offers a role model for armed American teenagers. The guide begins:

“Philippe Squarzoni’s  rigorous presentation of the relevant science and thoughtful reflection on the implications for policy, both public and personal, allow teachers to integrate economic, political, and individual responses to the realities of climate change that students will experience in their lifetime. 

“The fact that Climate Changed is also a highly expressive work of graphic nonfiction rich in text features, and thoroughly capable of functioning as a primary and secondary source, make it an optimal text for students at various levels …

“For your convenience, this guide is aligned with the Common Core  [US] State Standards (CCSS), specifically the ‘Literacy in Science & Technical Subjects’ strand, and the framework of thematic standards of the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).”

In the questions for students, the first is,  “What convincing evidence exists for anthropogenic climate change?”

Students are asked to evaluate “which evidence is most compelling, and why?” On p429, the comic’s captions say:

“Over the last two decades, the world has experienced the hottest years since 1880. The summer melting of the Arctic ice packs happened 40% faster than predicted. Greenland’s glaciers and the Antarctic are also melting so fast that even specialists in these regions are surprised…

“2008: Hottest October Ever Recorded. We’re probably approaching that level of warming, the 3.6 to 5.4 Degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 3 Degrees Centigrade), where the tipping points are. Climate High Alert…that we’re better off not approaching.” 

The final frame shows a cauldron boiling under a fire.

Next question – somewhat loaded:

“How do the experts represented in the book consider, and refute, evidence for counterarguments?”

Another question:

“How might the lack of scientific understanding among the general public contribute to unfounded optimism (e.g., climate change will be far in the future—there will be tech solutions by then), often through the manipulation of data (p. 416)?”

That page refers to ‘trumped-up’ Climategate scandals, the skeptics’ ‘smear campaign’ creating public doubt, and skeptics deceiving the public about temperatures halting in 1998. The guide finishes with an essay question:

“ According to the author, how does media coverage of climate change, including its current consequences,hamper the ability of societies to take necessary steps?”

Teachers are then told:

“Answers will vary. Examples include the gradualness/ distribution of climate-related deaths (pp. 250–51) as well as the “shoddy journalism” shown during the so-called “climategate” incident (pp. 418–19)”

The comic’s says on page 250:

“Global warming causing 300,000 deaths per year” including, curiously, in Vietnam. The captions say, with intended irony, “The victims of climate change die slowly, one after another – no drama, no media coverage – scattered over the whole year over the whole planet. If only they had the good sense all to die on the same day, like the victims of the 2004 tsunami, that would catch our attention.”

A few of the questions in the teacher’s guide are reasonable, e.g.

  • “Consider this statement: “The beginning of the end of the world is beginning” (p. 304). Does it belong in a book about science? Does it make the discussion more authentic and/or state clearly what’s at stake in terms of climate change? Does Squarzoni sufficiently prove this point? Why or why not?”


  • “Does writing from the perspective of a French citizen enhance or undermine the author’s critique of the ‘American way of life’? Do you detect any cultural or political biases in the book? Support your opinion with relevant text evidence.”

Tony Thomas blogs at tthomas061.wordpress.com

Big Green Hypocrites — Part III


Every wonder where the largest and loudest green groups get their million-dollar budgets? Forget those small-change contributions you see cup-rattlers collecting outside your local supermarket. The big bucks — and they are very big indeed — often arrive via shadowy conduits from some very surprising sources


green dollarEarly this year in Hollywood, James O’Keefe, a scourge of progressives, ran a sting against Green film producers Josh and Rebecca Tickell. The Tickells were creating a movie against gas frakking. O’Keefe’s accomplice “Muhammed” successfully posed as a Middle East oil owner offering to fund the film, but only on condition the funding stayed secret. Rebecca told “Muhammed”: “Because if people think the film is funded by Middle Eastern oil it … will not have that credibility.” Added Josh Tickell: “It’s money, so in that sense we have no moral issue.”

Last month, a minority Republican report from Senate Environment and Public Works Committee set out how America’s green groups are being funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars by secret offshore interests with a Bermuda address.

These interests are part of a complex and secret web of green funders, headed by some of America’s billionaires and multi-millionaires. The billionaires whose foundations and charities are involved include the Hewlett and Packard computer families, the Rockefellers, Intel’s heirs, and the Walton clan of Walmart fame. Sub-billionaire funders include Google heirs, Getty heirs, food and media heirs, and hedge-fund owners.

The 90-page Senate report   was titled, “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.”

Members of the “club” have successfully served as midwives for President Obama’s new policy against coal-fired power, announced in June. This involves 30% emission cuts (relative to 2005) by 2030, which the Senate committee fears is the ‘death knell’ for the coal industry. President Obama last October famously criticised  his opponents for  “millionaires and billionaires bankrolling whoever they want, however they want, in some cases undisclosed. What it means is ordinary Americans are shut out of the process.” Perhaps he was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

Among recipients of the club’s funding to activists in the period  2010 to ’13 were Centre for American Progress, $US8.4 million;  Earthjustice, $US3.5 million; Environmental Defence Fund, $US54 million; Greenpeace, $US2 million; League of Conservation Voters’ Education Fund, $US13 million; Natural Resources Defense Council, $US26 million;  Nature Conservancy, $US59 million; Sierra Club Foundation, $US17 million; Union of Concerned Scientists, $US8 million; and World Wildlife Fund, $US26 million.

Even minor green groups enjoy multi-million-dollar assets.  Earthjustice commands $US59 million and Centre for Biological Diversity gets $US12 million.  The big ones include Environmental Defense Fund ($US209m); National Resources Defence Council ($US268 million) and Audubon Society ($US450 million).

Part I of ‘Big Green Hypocrites’

Part II of ‘Big Green Hypocrites’

The committee was constrained to dealing only with the Environmental Protection Agency and energy/environmental policy. It reported that it had barely scratched the surface of hidden funding mechanisms for the “progressive” NGOs (non-government organisations). The billionaires’ role in the guise of tax-free ‘philanthropy’ has  generated little interest from the mainstream US media. One wonders if this might have something to do with the steady stream of packaged “scoops” reporters are fed by their green contacts.

By contrast, the oil industry’s billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch, have been lambasted by Greenpeace as bankrolling the pro-fossil-fuel Americans for Prosperity Foundation for close to $US1 million p.a. for the six years to 2010. The Heritage Foundation similarly received an average sum of under $US400,000 a year (David Koch is chairman; it’s not much of a secret). The Cato Institute averaged $US600,000 and the Manhattan Institute, $US200,000

These were the biggest sceptic recipients of Koch  money, according to Greenpeace. If Greenpeace is right that the Koch brothers dispensed $US67m to sceptics over the 13 years from 1997 until 2010, that’s just $US5m per year — a small matter when compared with well over $US1b from rival foundations to the warmist community in 2011 alone.

The committee was mystified at why many super-rich are anti fossil-fuel and pro the green’s agenda for Big Government, and why they   go to such lengths to conceal their involvement. It drops hints that some sponsors are heavily invested in energy renewables; some are anti-frakking for personal reasons; and others are ideologically driven.

Here are some club members:

  • William & Flora Hewlett Foundation (computers): assets $US7.7b
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation (computers): assets $US6.3b
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (Intel): assets $US5.7b
  • Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. (oil): assets $US800m
  • Walton Family Foundation (retailing) : assets $US2b
  • Schmidt Family Foundation (Google): assets $US312m
  • Park Foundation, Inc. (foods, media): assets $US366m
  • Marisla Foundation (Getty oil): assets $US51m
  • Sea Change Foundation (mystery):  assets $US124m
  • Wallace Global Fund (chickens and eggs): assets $US155m
  • TomKat Charitable Trust (Tom Steyer hedge funds): assets $US178m

Key players include the   Sea Change Foundation and The Energy Foundation, which muster wholesale tranches of funds from local and undisclosed foreign donors, and disburse them to environmental activist groups.

Sea Change Foundation is a private outfit based in San Francisco. In 2011 it was the sixth-largest donor to environmental causes, giving $US43 million in grants to environmental and far-left eco activists. More than $US20 million went for campaigns against US fossil fuels. Sea Change’s president is hedge-fund owner  Nat Simons. His father, James, is worth $US12 billion. Nat Simons is also CEO of Elan Management, a renewables company, which laments that US baseload energy is still ‘a very inexpensive resource’ relative to wind and solar.

Most of Sea Change funding comes from the Simons, but 33% to 49% in recent years came from mysterious Bermuda-based shell company Klein Ltd.  Public information about Klein and its funding sources is virtually non-existent, the report says.

Many green funders coordinate their giving through membership of the secretive Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) –  “command central of the environmental movement”.

A Rockefeller Fund member of EGA was quoted: “Funders can play a role in using money to drive, to create, ad hoc efforts, in many cases that will have a litigation component coming from one group, a lobbying component coming from another group, a grass roots component organizing component from yet a third group with a structure that enables them to function well.”

In 2011, EGA members collectively donated $1.13 billion, or 40% of all US foundation giving, to environmental causes.

A typical grant was $US200,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to the so-called Union of Concerned Scientists  (anyone can join for $US35) “for coal retirement and removing market barriers to renewable energy projects.”

The Senate committee says of the club,  “The scheme to keep their efforts hidden and far removed from the political stage is deliberate, meticulous, and intended to mislead the public … These individuals and foundations go to tremendous lengths to avoid public association with the far-left environmental movement they so generously fund.” The foundations are accompanied by a network of charitable trusts, some of which  function as intermediaries distancing greens from their wealthy backers and others useful for washing political funding into tax-exempt entities.

An innovation is ‘fiscal sponsorships’ which see leftist charities lend their non-profit and tax-exempt status to political lobbyists in return for a fee.

Another umbrella group is Divest/Invest, seeking to switch investment from fossil-based  fuels to renewables. Its strategy is to liken its plan to the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s, with fossil-fuel divestment presented as a moral imperative and fossil-fuel advocates cast as pariahs. The committee says that Divest/Invest is unconcerned that its program would stall South Africans’ rise from poverty, which Nelson Mandela sought to remedy.

Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is examined and found to be complicit with activists.

  • EPA administrator Al  Armendaris was caught by the committee stating internally in 2012 how he would “crucify” an energy company to set an example for the rest of the oil and gas industry. He was scheduled to testify before Congress about his controversial statement, but instead resigned from EPA and is now Senior Campaign Representative for Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal Campaign”.
  • EPA official Bob Sussman was outed by the committee for vetting EPA job applicants based on whether they  “had the support of environmental justice leaders,” and using his personal email for sensitive communications with environmental lobbies.
  • Another EPA insider, Michelle DePass, formerly with the Ford Foundation and the Environmental Grantmakers Association, for a time ran her EPA and Ford roles concurrently, and resigned when outed by the committee.
  • Under Obama, EPA has handed out more than $US27m from taxpayers to Green groups, including $US1m each to two groups with personal ties to senior EPA officials.

The foundations like to finance research that can be presented as buttressing their green agendas. They also finance media outlets, which duly report on those same research findings, and defend them against critics. The public does not know about the linkages via grant money.

The committee names Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and Climate Desk as outlets that have obtained grants from ‘the club’ and which act as echo chambers for funder-paid Green  propaganda. In one example, a story reporting on a Park Foundation-supported anti-fracking study was reproduced by a Park-funded news organization through a Park-funded media collaboration. It was then further disseminated via Twitter by the maker of Park-backed anti-fracking movies!

The Park Foundation ($US366m assets) is run by an anti-frakking zealot, Adelaide Park Gomer, who is not content with prose attacks on fracking. Her outlets also have published her verse, such as Ballad of a Dying Planet:

Islands and forests paved over forever
By asphalt and buildings while mankind endeavors
To replace nature with ugly big boxes and towers,
Golden arches, Disney worlds, a banquet of horrors.

From 2010, Park has given $US400,000 for anti-frakking studies by ecologist Robert Howarth. Cornell University published one in early 2011, but it was quickly rebutted as flawed. It was, however, puffed and defended by  environmental media sources Earth Island Journal (which  received $US31,500 from Park) and Yes! magazine ($US50,000). The partners of Park-funded Climate Desk –  including Huffington Post, Mother Jones ($US170,000 from Park), the Atlantic and The Guardian — all puffed the Howarth research. So did Grist ($US95,000). The Schmidt Foundation (assets $US312 million) also backed Mother Jones ($US225,000 grant) and Grist ($US850,000). The club also has donated more than $US1.8 million to Media Matters, a group whose remit is “correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media” (emphasis added).

“Respectable” green groups, such as World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund and Centre for Biological Diversity, serve as the face of the movement and provide cover for funding that ultimately goes to more radical groups.

The club uses funding to organize sham ‘grass-roots’ campaigns to secure national objectives at state level – such as fracking restrictions in New York and Colorado (“Frack Free Colorado”).

An example of funding of “dark greens” involves money to 350.org, dedicated to pushing the world backward from the current 400ppm CO2  to 350ppm. Key people in 350.org are catastrophists James Hansen (the NASA employee who virtually launched the CO2 scare in 1988), and 350.org founder Bill McKibben. For a sample of the latter’s intellectual clout, try this from Copenhagen, 2009:

This afternoon I sobbed for an hour, and I’m still choking a little… My tears started before anyone said a word. As the service started, dozens of  choristers from around the world carried three things down the aisle and to the altar: pieces of dead coral bleached by hot ocean temperatures; stones uncovered by retreating glaciers; and small, shriveled ears of corn from drought-stricken parts of Africa.”

On the vulgar subject of money, McKibben described 350.org that year as “a scruffy little outfit” with “almost no money”. By that, he meant expenses of over $US2.6m and net assets of over $US2.1m, with an asset increase of $US1m in the next couple of years. Thereafter grants poured in from the wealthy foundations.

A curious example of money-washing involves  the Tides Inc.  group,  with tax-exempt charity status. It takes money from the  club and funnels it to more than 200  Green groups while offering anonymity to the actual sponsors.  Tides Foundation had $US135m assets in 2012.  At one point Tides Foundation gave $US10m to Tides Centre, and Tides Centre gave $US39m to Tides Foundation – presumably to obscure a money trail.

If the climate wars are a David ‘n Goliath affair, the sceptics certainly aren’t Goliath.

Ratepayers and Ratbaggery


Catastropharian David Spratt came to Moonee Ponds to tell the faithful why Victorians must turf the government of Liberal Premier Denis Napthine. His audience loved the show, but why is the municipality putting ratepayer funds and facilities at the service of a fact-averse and nakedly partisan preacher from the outer limits of the loony left?


megaphone manThe Labor-dominated, but notionally non-partisan, Moonee Valley City Council kindly provided a public platform on Wednesday evening (Aug. 20, 2014) for far-left activist David Spratt to advise on how to get rid of Victoria’s coalition government. Spratt summed up, “At the 2010 (State) election, five to six bayside seats, from Brighton to Frankston, fell from Labor to conservatives, basically because the train line didn’t work.”

Warming to his theme, Spratt continued: “A group calledEnvironment Victoria has spent two years and is starting a third, talking to people there, setting up a shopfront, street stalls, door-to-door knocking, phone-banking, asking people to commit when they vote to put the environment first.

“If, across Victoria, by that process they can change 2000 votes in half a dozen seats, that will probably make the difference to the election. So there are a lot of things that can be done, and are being done, at a concrete level to make a difference, and here are my contact details for anyone wanting to continue the conversation at another time.”

The free, two-hour event was meant to be “an information session” on climate change, but the only speakers invited were Spratt and the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s national co-director,  Kirsty Albion, who spoke with youthful passion on how to subvert and, hopefully, destroy the Australian coal industry. You can get a very good idea of Spratt’s sky-is-falling catastrophism, political orientation, looseness with facts and general comfort when preaching to the climate choir from the video below.

Mayor Jan Chantry (Labor) opened the show with the council’s tribute to spirits and ancestors and said, “Moonee Valley is proud of its diverse community and acknowledges the contribution that all people make to this diverse, vibrant and inclusive municipality.”

She had somehow overlooked  the biggest minority group in the Valley – conservative voters like myself, who comprise about 40% of her ratepayers. A rate notice for $2358 the same week augmented my pain. I judged that I was the only conservative voter in the audience of 60.

The tone wasn’t set by accident. The promotional brochure says that Spratt’s work “focuses on climate science, communications and climate-movement politics, drawing on experiences that include the peace, anti-uranium and solidarity social movements.”

The mayor left early to go to a Rotary meeting but Councillor Jim Cusack (Labor)  stayed for the duration.

The council is comprised of four Labor people, three independents and two Liberals. It is pretty clean by the standards of north-west councils. Only two of the nine councilors have pleaded guilty to a criminal offence in the past two years, one being a left-leaning independent and the other (whoops!) a Liberal.

Spratt began his talk by painting a terrifying picture of climate change turning the communities of Point Nepean, Point Lonsdale, Altona and Albert Park into vast lakes brought about by 2m sea level rises (even the IPCC  only talks about 60cm rises by 2100). Spratt said, “With three-degree warming we get 20-30 metre rises in sea level. We are drowning human civilization on the coastal fringe – Cairo, Manila, Bangkok, Florida…” Temperate Dubbo would change to a climate like Tom Price or Hermannsburg, agriculture would cease west of the Dividing Range, the Murray River system would go dry, and Melbourne would have to get used to “yucky” 50-degree days. “Our addiction to fossil fuels is killing us,” he said, to the visible and audible horror of his audience.

His solution to civilisation’s near-term collapse? We should intensify community efforts to get rid of the state and federal coalition governments, which he accused of putting economic and vested interests ahead of CO2 safety. Tony Abbott for example, was “sacking all the researchers” — which would be news to our vast academic climate-change industry. Spratt recommended we all join groups like Yarraville’s Climate for Change, Moreland and Northcote activists, and Brunswick’s door-knocking pests.

Sandra Mack, one of the council’s three sustainability officers whose salaries are underwritten by residents’ rates, arranged the event. She thanked Spratt for his talk and said, “David showed us the impacts and urgency to act. When David and I had a chat before, about what he would be presenting on, I asked him, ‘David can you please present on climate change without trying to make people depressed’. I feel glad that you gave a very positive spin at the end by showing us what can be done. There’s also a climate petition here for people to sign.”

I went over to get a hot cup of tea in one of the council’s “Biovene” degradable plastic cups (not Styrofoam, of course) but found the tureen water had somehow lost its electric heat during Spratt’s talk. Could the council’s ‘zero-emission electricity efforts’ be to blame?

Mack had told me earlier that she had picked Spratt as speaker because she thought his 2008 bookClimate Code Red was terrific. (It claims climate catastrophes will be far worse than governments say, which seems inherently difficult). She had picked Albion after being ‘blown away’ (an apt phrase) by her inspirational talk at another meeting. I asked Mack if it was appropriate for the council to be allowing Spratt to run a public anti-government rally under the council’s roof, but she denied Spratt had been party-political. She explained that the evening was about sustainability issues for the citizenry, e.g. light bulbs and solar panels.

I said Spratt’s politicking was undeniable and asked why, if she was selecting two speakers, she didn’t choose one of them from the government side of the argument, as a sop to us conservative ratepayers. She repeated that it was not a political meeting.

However, she saw fit to make a nervous announcement late in the evening: “I emphasise that we [the council] are not in favor of any political party here. Tonight is a non-political event about community action getting Moonee Valley toward zero emissions. It is all about community action.”

She also disclosed that Spratt and Albion had volunteered their time, but I’m still sore that my rates paid for all these lefties’ and greenies’ pastries and cake.

Mack was kind enough to give me first question in the miserly ten minutes allocated to question time. I asked Spratt if the measured 14-18 year halt to warming made his predictions of death and disaster “a little bit ridiculous”. To murmured approval from the audience, he replied that the heating had continued but, as always, the great bulk of it had gone into the oceans, which were warming. “Because tomorrow’s colder than today doesn’t mean it’s autumn,” he said.

He continued, “Climate denial is not about  science. What interests me is that very few young people are deniers and very few women are. Very few are under 60, they are just grumpy old men.”

Me: “That’s a bit ageist.”

Spratt:  “It is true, many deniers are geologists and meteorologists  struggling to deal with changes in their professions that have surpassed the knowledge they were brought up with. Knowledge has changed, their professional lives are over and it is too difficult for them to deal with. Grumpy old men.”

Me: “How old are you?”  [I’d guess about 60].

Spratt: “I am a grumpy old bloke, too.”

And I certainly am, after last night.

Suitable Cases For Treatment


Wreathed in self-importance but boasting little grasp of the science, the Australian Psychological Society is no fair-weather friend of the warmist movement. Indeed, its dire prophecies and ill-informed endorsements of the most dubious methods and “evidence” make it a case study in institutional delusion

shrink madProfessor of Psychology Stephan Lewandowsky is much in the news of late because the science publishers Frontiers dumped his paper, Recursive Fury (pathologising climate skeptics), because of its ethical shortcomings. Lewandowsky  is a favorite of the Australian Psychological Society (APS).According to UK Guardian, the APS backed him all the way. The APS, said The Guardian, offers  “a good example for journals to follow when subjected to organized bullying from contrarians trying to censor sound but inconvenient research.”

It seems time for a look at the APS, a 21,000-member international pacesetter among psychology bodies for ministering to alleged mental health impacts of alleged climate change. It cites as me-too organisations the American, British and Canadian psychology societies (APA, BPS and CPA).

Long-time senior psychologist at the APS is Dr Susie Burke, who also co-authored  the APS position statement on climate change. In October, 2013, she put out a statement on the 5th IPCC report: “The threats that unmitigated climate change pose to physical and mental health rise every year”. This is a bit hard to reconcile with the halt to warming since 1997, but Burke’s inclination to gush about her role models remains undiminished. Here’s a sample, re a Perth APS conference, which is headlined lugubriously, The Hopeful Space between Denial and Despair:

“Exhibitors have packed up, the corridors are empty, voices echo, the complimentary coffee trolley has gone home. You’d be forgiven for thinking the Conference was over. But wait, not yet, what’s this? Down the corridors stride three professors to talk about one of the most serious environmental and health threats of the 21st Century, and why mental health professionals care about it.”

Who were these eminent psychologists who “lowered the mood, and raised the pulse”? Professor Carmen Lawrence, a former  Labor premier and ALP president;  Lewandowsky, the chronicler of the now-failed Recursive Fury; and Professor Joseph Reser, the APS’s opinion survey guru. (There will be more on Reser in Part Two of this series).


The APS endeavours to out-do Greenpeace in climate catastrophism. Here’s some samples from the APS website  (heaven knows what gets written in the ‘member-only’ sections):

Perhaps the APS could take its own advice:

“We generally cope better, and are more effective at making changes, when we are calm and rational…  don’t over-react and start behaving as though catastrophic change is imminent. Lasting change requires sustained commitment, and fanning short-term panic can have the opposite effect.”

The APS has only the most tenuous grasp of the on-going  warming debate. For example, it is  incapable of distinguishing weather (including droughts, floods, storms etc) from longer-term climate, let alone critiquing the IPCC’s climate modelling. But the APS is happy to discover and see treated whatever neuroses and depressions that warming talk (including its own) is generating. The APS clearly expects these conditions to become epidemic as CO2 does its deadly work. In  its own words, the APS goal is  “to position psychologists as a professional group with expert knowledge, skills  and resources that can help in climate change science, including mitigation and adaptation.”

While excoriating sceptics as part of a giant conspiracy backed by Big Oil, the APS was fretting in the queue for some  oil money itself: “We need to lobby the Australian Government to divert at least some of its climate change research budget towards psychological research … There may also be money available from fossil fuel companies(such as coal and oil producers and consumers) in the same way that tobacco companies contributed to research designed to prevent adolescents from taking up smoking.”

The APS’s big coup  was to publish a “Tip Sheet” on how children can be indoctrinatedwith the warming messages without sending them clinically insane. This is a worldwide issue. As an American journal put it, “Before she had even lost  her baby teeth, a small girl was saying, ‘I worry about [global warming] because I don’t want to die.’ Surveys across the Anglosphere have shown children under the age of 11 are fretting that global warming will destroy the planet before they can grow up. And slightly older children can be more worried about climate change than dating.

So the APS Tip Sheet was timely:

Alarmed small children may show behavior changes  —“ e.g., in their play, drawing, or dreams that might suggest that something is unsettling them.” They might find it easier to talk about environmental issues via a toy or puppet. Try asking, “And how are you feeling today, Teddy?”. [This seems to  be cut and pasted from child-sexual-abuse counseling].

Climate issues have the potential to bring up strong feelings like fear, anxiety, frustration, sadness, depression, helplessness, anger or despair:

“Worries and anxieties about these threats can become difficult for children of all ages to deal with.”

Parents should reassure small children “that their home is a safe place” [but who is telling them it isn’t?]

Climate talk, like sex and divorce talk, is to be avoided in front of small children.

“Adults need to be conscious of the presence of children when discussing climate change and other worrying environmental problems…Be mindful of how you are reacting to news about environmental problems in front of your child. If your reactions are too strong, these can upset and confuse your child.”

Children may need to be reassured that environmental catastrophes are not happening near them.

Small details can quickly turn into large generalisations (e.g., ‘If the planet is getting hotter, will we all get burnt?’).”

The Tip Sheet promotes activist groups, with even primary school-aged children being urged to help choose an environmental group for family donations. [Is pointing children towards green activist groups likely to improve a tot’s equanimity?]

Adolescents are encouraged to precociously pester the talk-back radio and newspapers, and lobby the government and industry. Activist websites are recommended.

“Encourage your whole family to be part of a world-wide movement of people who recognise that there are limits to the world’s natural resources,”

The above advice is either a platitude or drawn from the discredited 1972 Club of Rome forecast, “Limits to Growth”. More than four decades later, and despite its dire prognosis for the planet having failed to materialise, the defence of that flawed and foolish tract continues.

The Tip Sheet encourages adolescents to study diverse views, but   implies that skeptic views are beyond the pale. Recommended authors include environmental zealot David Suzuki,who wants sceptic politicians gaoled on criminal charges. Elsewhere, the APS positively urges that children be shoved into the front lines as warmist climate-fodder:

Schools also increasingly include environmental education in the curriculum. Psychological research can help optimise the effectiveness of schools’ efforts by identifying factors influencing ESB [environmentally sustainable behavior] in young people. These include lack of knowledge, believing actions won’t make much difference, frustration, action paralysis, and pessimism…

Schools can provide students with experiences of ‘active citizenship’, like writing letters, signing petitions and making complaints. This pro-environmental concern can be passed on from children to parents…although there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of children as environmental change agents.

For the 2010 election, the APS issued its climate change manifesto calling for “development and implementation of school based curriculum promoting sustainable values, attitudes and behaviour in school aged children, and developing a series of guidelines for educators.”

Business is business, and the APS sees money-making potentials with its kiddie tip sheet.

“There are many ways you can use APS Tip Sheets as a marketing resource for your practice. Start by always remembering to place your practice’s name and address stamp in the empty box provided on the back page, then try the following ideas:

  • Distribute Tip Sheets to clients and their families as an extra tool for education and understanding
  • When updating a GP about a jointly managed patient, enclose a Tip Sheet and business card. GPs are a great distribution channel for Tip Sheets
  • Enclose a Tip Sheet with every introduction/thank you letter you send to referral sources
  • Display Tip Sheets in your waiting room
  • Mail Tip Sheets to phone enquirers
  • Distribute Tip Sheets at public speaking  engagements

The APS’s bestie was the now-axed Climate Commission. The APS saw the commission as a font of “independent” warming advice, notwithstanding federal funding that included   $180,000-a-year for three days’ work a week by its chief commissioner Tim Flannery, of whom the APS gushed:

“At the meeting’s end, Tim leant forward in his chair, gazed out the 13th floor window and asked ‘Did you know you had a falcon nest above your office?’ What a fitting way to end our exchange, being reminded of the wild and wonderful world, even in the heart of a major metropolitan city, that we have a responsibility to protect by restoring a safe climate.”

Not surprisingly, the APS provided the Commission with  “additional psychological principles” to reinforce Flannery & Co.’s  crusade.

Apart from the much-admired Tim, other alleged authorities revered by the APS include Al Gore plus Inconvenient Truth,  Professor Ian Lowe, president of the activist Australian Conservation Foundation, and any other green propagandist the APS encounters.  Fiction films like the crazed Day After TomorrowThe Age of Stupid, and The 11th Hour are described as “addressing climate change”. Even  APS people can have brief moments of lucidity, such as in these comments:

  • Trust [of scientists and government] is easily damaged, and when e-mails are stolen and selectively quoted, or a single overeager scientist exaggerates future climate change outcomes even in one region, widespread distrust can be created.
  • Disparaging sceptic blog comments, namely: It figures that a bunch of psychologists need to mess with people’s heads to get them to fall in line with this “eco-friendly” nonsense. … Climate change is a problem invented by “scientists who are pursuing a phantom issue” and   scientists are ignoring research “proving” the problem is overestimated or does not exist.
  • Disparaging sceptic blog comments, namely: The host of a popular show on a leading U.S. television network held up a copy of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and said, “The shrinks are trying to brainwash us again.”

A little scepticism can’t shake a true believer’s faith however, so the APS pumps out advice like that below. If the tone seems a tad patronising, it may just be that the author had in mind the anxiety-prone warmists who purport to report climate news for The Age, SMHand ABC:

  • Although environmental threats are real and can be frightening, remaining in a state of heightened distress is not helpful for ourselves or for others.
  • Remember, other people may well be like you and feel anxious or unsettled at learning about some of the environmental threats looming.
  • Spending time with loved ones can be helpful in keeping yourself grounded and energised. Enjoy friends and family, and make sure there are at least one or two people with whom you can share your concerns when feeling dispirited.
  • Ensure you are familiar with common arguments and useful counter-arguments that will help you respond more comfortably and smoothly. Asking a friend to role-play a sceptic, and practising how you’re going to handle these different perspectives can be very helpful. 
  • Sometimes taking a news break can be helpful. Turning off the radio or TV, and having a break from the newspaper for a few days can be a welcome relief. Taking a deliberate break is quite different from becoming desensitised.

Tony Thomas achieved a B-pass in Psychology 101 at UWA in 1959. He blogs attthomas061.wordpress.com

The Head-Shrinking Scourge Of Sceptics


Professor Joseph Reser of the Australian Psychological Association fears that “climate deniers” are hobbling the push to save our poor, sweating planet. He would be better advised to check his “facts”, because many aren’t merely wrong, they are ludicrously so

shrink brainThe  eminence grise of the 21,000-member Australian Psychology Society (APS) is Professor Joseph Reser of Griffith University, a contributing author to the 5th IPCC report. With funding support from the since-axed Department of Climate Change, he and his team ran two large-scale Australian surveys in 2010 and 2011 (3096 and 4347 respondents), to document people’s climate change views.  From the results he has filed two academic reports totaling 340 pages, endlessly quoted by the APS.

Reser found that  “genuine distress at the implications of climate change appeared to be a reality for possibly 20% of survey respondents” (p141). Amazingly, 52% of the total 7443 respondents thought that global warming impacts were “currently” being felt in Australia, 45% thought they had personally witnessed the environmental impacts, and 59% thought their home turf was vulnerable to climate change horrors.

Climate worrywarts, according to Reser, are suffering

“…apprehension, anxiety, or loss due to the threat and projected consequences of climate change, for oneself, humanity, and/or the natural world”,  along with hopelessness, dread, “uncertainly” (sic) , resignation, pessimism, real sadness, preoccupation, psychological distress, genuine alarm and fear, “and a clear sense that things will likely get worse”.

He also has discovered supercharged sorrow because of  the alleged loss of species and ecosystems through lately non-existent warming.


The APS sees all this as a great opportunity to provide ‘stress and distress’ counseling to our panicking citizenry, and to help   design behavior-change programs. Considering the APS favors 30% emission cuts by 2020, and 90% by 2050 (back to the caves, everyone!), our behaviour would  certainly need some changing. Yikes, we’re nearly to 2020 already. Even Kevin Rudd wanted only a 5% cut by 2020, from 2000 levels.

Amusingly, Reser imagines that human emissions have been damaging the planet “for at least the past several hundred years” (p123). Those 600 steam engines 18th century Europe clearly have a lot of global warming to answer for. So, apparently, do  the Virgin Queen’s fireplaces.

In the 2010 survey, Reser asked how concerned you are that “electricity will become unaffordable”. A whopping 85% said they were fairly or very concerned. This embarrassing question disappeared from the bigger July-August 2011 survey, without explanation.

While professing to play a straight bat with his 2011 survey, Reser includes a question about what strategies you are relying on re climate change, “such as, ‘Pretend that climate change is not happening’”. Well, for 15 years that warming hasn’t been happening, so no need to “pretend” anything. Another question precludes any sceptical answer:

  • Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about climate change?
  • The issue is overwhelming and I feel helpless
  • I am frustrated that not enough is being done
  • I am hopeful that if we take action now, we can stop it
  • I am tired of hearing about it, and I want to see some action taken. (author’s emphasis).

Maybe we need a fifth choice here:

  • I wish Professor Reser would stop frightening the horses.

The tenor of Reser’s surveys also can be judged by the ten questions he asks to test respondents’ “objective knowledge” about climate “facts”, then cross-tabulated against a myriad of other survey findings. Below are five statements he rates as “True” and he marks down anyone saying they are “False”. The result: most respondents struggled to get the 50% pass rate on Reser’s ‘facts’ (but Greens voters got the best scores):

1.  Australia is one of the most exposed nations with respect to projected impacts of climate change 2. Climate change will increase the risk in Australia for diseases transmitted by water and mosquitoes over the next 100 years.[1]
3. Globally, the current burning of fossil fuels accounts for 80-85% (CO2) emissions added to the atmosphere.[2]
4. The change in global temperature for the last 100 years is greater than for the last 1000 years  [Hello to Michael Mann’s discredited “Hockey Stick” reconstruction of global temperatures].
The number of weather-related disasters around the world has doubled since the mid 1990s.[3]

Regarding 1, we can discover elsewhere in Reser’s report  that CSIRO and  Bureau of Meteorology and Professor Will Steffen merely ‘deem’ Australia to be more exposed than other continents (not ‘nations’) to this hypothetical warming, because of hypothetical flooding of our long coastlines and all that.

The four “fact” options are, in fact, a mix of futurology (1 and 2), a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery, if ever established (3), paleoclimatology – a highly-uncertain science (4),  and vagueness multiplied (5). In the first survey, he muddled his own preamble to a  question, wrongly claiming (p78) that the 2007 census asked people about their concern about climate change.

While Reser is a whiz at survey-processing, his lack of smarts on the man-made warming debate let him down. Not once in 340 pages does he mention the halt to warming since 1997 – although even the IPCC now acknowledges a 15-year hiatus.  Instead, Reser discovers   “more and more … a profoundly changing global environment” (p134). He spends scores of pages, and much of his survey, on making or noting illegitimate connections between various recent big weather events and the ogre of (not-happening) global warming. Even IPCC scientists reject links between climate change and specific weather events, other than heat waves and precipitation.

But he suggests that since nearly half the public is convinced such links exist (eg., between climate change and 2009′s Black Saturday bushfire catastrophe in Victoria), the misperception should be harnessed for warmist-indoctrination purposes.  (One respondent was convinced about the global warming narrative because he/she had seen snakes in mid-winter). Reser continues that it makes “considerable practical as well as psychological sense” to bring climate change “home” to people via the climate/weather-extreme linkages, to prompt people to swap light globes and other green activities (p134).

He’s personally convinced there ares links and evidently feels no moral discomfort. He believes the “hard-line position” of science against linking specific extreme weather events and climate change is crumbling in favor of a ‘more pragmatic’ stance, which will accept the need for ‘near real time’ causal accounts and explanations. In any event, scientists can fall back on the meme that linking climate change to a storm etc., can be done, if couched in ways involving “the probabilistic nature of attribution”, he says. So let’s go with the link, he says, since “ newspaper, new media, and popular science headlines and images around the world repeatedly proclaim this interconnection between climate change and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events” (p136).

I suspect the Reser formula for this climate “education” has gained real traction, given the drumbeat of stories lately making the dud climate/storm/drought linkages.

Reser is rattled by surveys – including CSIRO’s – finding ‘sceptics’ in the community numbering 40% or so. He insists on a figure for sceptics of 4.7-8.5%, based on his own surveys. His concern is that larger sceptic numbers, like 40%, from other polls and even from the ABC, are broadcast by the media, and  then plunge believers into swamps of “confusion, frustration and pessimism” (p145).

His solution is simple: he redefines ‘sceptics’ so stringently that hardly anyone would qualify. To Reser, a stringent sceptic (4.7% of population) believes the world’s climate is not changing . They also believe that climate change is entirely natural and Australia will never start feeling any impacts of climate change. A more-inclusive Reser-defined sceptic  (8.5%) embraces a sceptic take on most of those propositions. The CSIRO is more plausible. It reported in January that, of of mid-2013, less than half of all Australians (47.3%) thought climate change was happening and humans were causing it.

Even on Reser’s stringent definition, scepticism grew from 2010 to 2011. His desperate rationalisations include media campaigning biased against true believers – this argument relying on axe-grinding work he cites  by researchers like Wendy Bacon. [Bacon, a journalism academic,  thinks any coverage whatsoever of sceptic views constitutes media bias]. Noting that  sceptics are ‘conservative white males’ sharing a weird worldview (p31), he suggests that they are dismissing the ‘science’ to reduce their anxieties. It never occurs to Reser that an unpredicted halt to warming of well over a decade might be encouraging a bit more scepticism about the IPCC.

In fact, his 2011 survey showed that only 29% bought the IPCC line of dominant human influence on warming, and nearly 70% did not (p176).

Reser’s view seems to be that sceptics can’t face the terror of global warming, so they are ‘frantically shoring up’ their equanimity by trying to discredit “the science, the scientists, and confronting documentaries” – I assume he means Gore’s  error-riddled Inconvenient Truth. Reser at no point grasps the importance to the science debate of the IPCC’s 51%-plus attribution of warming to human activity.

He brushes aside notions that “climate change” means any climate change, and insists that by the conveniently-circular United Nations definition, “climate change” means “human-caused climate change”. However, he concedes that his use of the term “climate change” in the survey might have led to confusions among respondents. Nonetheless, he thinks, “climate change” ought to “immediately raise issues of responsibility, accountability, and guilt” (p126).

He blames some rising scepticism on “oversaturated and sensationalized media coverage” (p142), as if his own output isn’t full of sensational claims about storms, disasters and planetary crises. As he puts it,  “Unfolding environmental changes and dire science prognoses are strongly suggesting that Australia and the world will be facing very serious and life-affecting challenges. …what is at risk are not only cherished aspects of familiar local and global natural environments, but life support systems and livelihoods as the world alters” (p160).

He discovers that Hurricane Sandy has generated “the global significance of much of New York City being inundated by a disaster associated with climate change”, although there is no evidence whatsoever that the hurricane was climate-change related (p152).

Reser’s endemic confusion between “climate” and “weather” probably stems from his use of the American Psychological Association definition, which fails to specify any time period, let alone the normal 30-year averaging of weather. The 2011 survey was funded not only by the late Department of Climate Change et al, but also by the Australian Red Cross.

Thus your Red  Cross donations, which you might imagine help feed starving Somalis,  may be  funding academics to labour over  mental health impacts in Australia of less than a degree of warming in the past  100 years.

Tony Thomas has suffered resignation, pessimism, real sadness, preoccupation, psychological distress etc from having to plough through Reser’s reports. He blogs attthomas061.wordpress.com


[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658  Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.





Finally, Some Real Climate Science

The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism.

The same APS put out a formal statement in 2007 adding its voice to the alarmist hue and cry. That statement caused resignations of some of its top physicists (including 1973 Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara).[1] The APS was forced by 2010 to add some humiliating clarifications but retained the original statement that the evidence for global warming was ‘incontrovertible’.[2]

By its statutes, the APS must review such policy statements each half-decade and that scheduled review is now under way, overseen by the APS President Malcolm Beasley.

The review, run by the society’s Panel on Public Affairs, includes four powerful shocks for the alarmist science establishment.[3]

First, a sub-committee has looked at the recent 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and formulated scores of critical questions about the weak links in the IPCC’s methods and findings. In effect, it’s a non-cosy audit of the IPCC’s claims on which the global campaign against CO2 is based.

Second, the sub-committee, after ‘consulting broadly’, appointed a panel to workshop the questions and then provide input to the new official statement on climate. The appointed panel of six, amazingly, includes three eminent sceptic scientists: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Judith Curry. The other three members comprise long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who, in 1996, drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a “discernible” influence of manmade CO2 on climate), an IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.

Third, the sub-committee is ensuring the entire process is publicly transparent — not just the drafts and documents, but the workshop discussions, which have been taped, transcribed and officially published, in a giant record running to 500+ pages.[4]

Fourth, the APS will publish its draft statement to its membership, inviting comments and feedback.

What the outcome will be, ie what the revised APS statement will say, we will eventually discover. It seems a good bet that the APS will break ranks with the world’s collection of peak science bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, and tell the public, softly or boldly, that IPCC science is not all it’s cracked up to be.

The APS audit of the IPCC makes a contrast with the Australian Science Academy’s (AAS) equivalent efforts. In 2010 the AAS put out a booklet, mainly for schools, ”The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers”, drafted behind closed doors. The drafters and overseers totalled 16 people, and the original lone sceptic, Garth Paltridge, was forced out by the machinations of then-President Kurt Lambeck.[5] The Academy is currently revising the booklet, without any skeptic input at all. Of the 16 drafters and overseers, at least nine have been IPCC contributors and others have been petition-signing climate-policy lobbyists, hardly appropriate to do any arm’s length audit of the IPCC version of the science. Once again, the process is without any public transparency or consulting with the broad membership.

The American Physical Society’s audit questions are pretty trenchant.[6] Just to recite some of them points in the can of worms soon to be authoritatively exposed. Here’s a selection:

The temperature stasis

While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …

To what would you attribute the stasis?

If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?

What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?

What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?

Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…

Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?

Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?

What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?

Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?

IPCC suggests that the stasis can be attributed in part to ‘internal variability’. Yet climate models imply that a 15-year stasis is very rare and models cannot reproduce the observed Global Mean Surface Temperature even with the observed radiative forcing.

What is the definition of ‘internal variability’? Is it poorly defined initial conditions in the models or an intrinsically chaotic nature of the climate system? If the latter, what features of the climate system ARE predictable?

How would the models underestimate of internal variability impact detection and attribution?

How long must the statis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models? If that occurs, would the fix entail: A retuning of model parameters? A modification of ocean conditions? A re-examination of fundamental assumptions?

General Understanding


What do you consider to be the greatest advances in our understanding of the physical basis of climate change since AR4 in 2007?
What do you consider to be the most important gaps in current understanding?
How are the IPCC confidence levels determined?
What has caused the 5% increase in IPCC confidence from 2007 to 2013?
Climate Sensitivity

[This relates to the size of feedbacks to the agreed and mild CO2-induced warming. If feedbacks are powerful and positive, the alarmist case is strong. If feedbacks are weak or negative, there is no basis for any climate scare or for trillions of dollars to be spent on curbing CO2 emissions].

A factor-of-three uncertainty in the global surface temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 as expressed by equilibrium climate sensitivity, has persisted through the last three decades of research despite the significant intellectual effort that has been devoted to climate science.

What gives rise to the large uncertainties in this fundamental parameter of the climate system?

How is the IPCC’s expression of increasing confidence in the detection/attribution/projection of anthropogenic influences consistent with this persistent uncertainty?

Wouldn’t detection of an anthropogenic signal necessarily improve estimates of the response to anthropogenic perturbations?

Models and Projections

The APS notes that the IPCC draws on results and averages from large numbers of models, and comments, “In particular, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that some member of the ensemble [of models] gets it right at any given time. Rather, as in other fields of science, it is important to know how well the ‘best’ single model does at all times.”

Were inclusion/exclusion decisions made prior to examining the results? How do those choices impact the uncertainties?

Which metrics were used to assess the [claimed] improvements in simulations between AR4 and AR5 [2007 and 2013 reports]?

How well do the individual models do under those metrics? How good are the best models in individually reproducing the relevant climate observations to a precision commensurate with the anthropogenic perturbations?

Climate Sensitivities

The APS notes that the 5th IPCC report acknowledged model overestimates of climate sensitivity to C02 increases, both in transient and equilibrium modes:

“As the observational value of TCR [transient climate response] is simply estimated to be approximately 1.3degC, it appears that the models overestimate this crucial climate parameter by almost 50%.”

Please comment on the above assessment.

Box 12.2 of AR5 Working Group 1 states: ‘Unlike ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity], the ranges of TCS [transient climate sensitivity] estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs [ Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model] agree well, increasing our confidence in the assessment of uncertainties in projections over the 21st century.’ Please comment on that statement in light of the discussion above.

The scale of anthropogenic perturbations

The APS notes that solar and thermal warming of the earth’s surface is about 503 watts per square metre, whereas the IPCC’s estimate of manmade CO2 forcing is only 1.3-3.3 watts per square metre, less than 0.5% of the total. Even if CO2 levels leapt from the present 400 parts per million to 550ppm, the CO2 warming would still be less than 4 watts per square metre, the APS says.

“The earth’s climate stems from a multi-component, driven, noisy, non-linear system that shows temporal variability from minutes to millennia. Instrumental observations of key physical climate variables have sufficient coverage and precision only over the past 150 years at best (and usually much less than that). Many different processes and phenomena will be relevant and each needs to be ‘gotten right’ with high precision if the response to anthropogenic perturbations is to be attributed correctly and quantified accurately. For example, a change in the earth’s average shortwave albedo [reflectivity] from 0.30 to 0.29 due to changing clouds, snow/ice, aerosols, or land character would induce a 3.4 W/m2 direct perturbation in the downward flux [warming], 50% larger than the present anthropogenic perturbation.

Moreover, there are expected feedbacks (water vapor-temperature, ice-albedo…) that would amplify the perturbative response by factors of several. How can one understand the IPCC’s expressed confidence in identifying and projecting the effects of such small anthropogenic perturbations in view of such difficult circumstances?”

Sea Ice

The APS notes that the models seem able to reproduce the Arctic declining ice trend, but not the Antarctic rising ice trend. Moreover, the APS has spotted that the IPCC had done its ice graphs using only 17 out of its 40 models, these 17 happening to produce reasonable fits with the data. The APS says,

“One may therefore conclude that the bulk of the CMIP5 [latest] models do not reproduce reasonable seasonal mean and magnitude of the ice cycle. Is that the case? And if so, what are the implications for the confidence with which the ensemble [the whole 40 models] can be used for other purposes?


The rate of rise during 1930-1950 was comparable to, if not larger than, the value in recent years. Please explain that circumstance in light of the presumed monotonic [steady] increase from anthropogenic effects.

The IPCC-projected rise of up to 1m by the end of this century would require an average rate of up to 12mm/yr for the rest of this century, some four times the current rate, and an order of magnitude larger than implied by the 20th century acceleration of0.01mm/yr found in some studies. What drives the projected sea level rise? To what extent is it dependent upon a continued rise in Global Mean Surface Temperature?…

With uncertainty in ocean data being ten times larger than the total magnitude of the warming attributed to anthropogenic sources, and combined with the IPCC’s conclusion that it has less than 10% confidence that it can separate long-term trends from regular variability, why is it reasonable to conclude that increases in Global Mean Surface Temperature are attributable to radiative forcing rather than to ocean variability?

IPCC officials and their supporters, including President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry, have disparaged sceptical questioners as ‘flat-earthers’. Has the American Physical Society shifted to a flat-earth position?

Tony Thomas has written some 30 climate essays for Quadrant and Quadrant online. He blogs at tthomas061.wordpress.com

[1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/nobel-laureate-resigns-from-american-physical-society-to-protest-the-organizations-stance-on-global-warming/


[2] http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

[3] http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm

Click to access climate-review-charge.pdf

[4] http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

[5] http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/02/climate-science-done/

[6] http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

tags American Physical Society, global warming, IPCC, John Christy, Judith Curry, Malcolm Beasley, Richard Lindzen

A Rather One-Sided ‘Conversation’


Staffed by left-leaning refugees from commercial news organisations’ withered operations, largely publicly funded and lavishly so, the online pulpit for academics to bang their favourite drums has little sympathy for those who doubt the planet is melting

hogarthIIThe lavishly-funded leftist blog for academia, The Conversation, has hired a new manager specifically to make contributors converse more politely. Cory Zanoni, an RMIT psychology graduate and social media guru, got the job of Community Manager in January. He was hired after complaints last year about vulgar comments on the articles with the responsibility for ‘creating a space for intelligent discussion’.

On February 13, Zanoni wrote, “I was appointed following concerns by some readers (and shared by editors) that there was a lack of civility in many comment threads. My brief is to fix this, not just for those who already comment but also for those who would take part if they felt it safe to do so. We want The Conversation to be a place for intelligent discussion and we think there’s more we can do to achieve that.”

Nice Mr Zanoni has now published the site’s new guidelines calling for all-round politeness, except towards climate skeptics, of course, who are to be banned for pointing out that the world ceased warming 17 years ago. Some extracts:

Be on-topic

Keep comments relevant to the article and replies relevant to the initiating post. We reserve the right to delete off-topic comments to keep threads on track.

For example: in an article about the policy response to climate change, comments made about denial of climate change will be considered off topic.

Be constructive

Explain why you disagree or agree with something. Your reasoning is as important as your opinion.

“This article sucks” will be deleted. “You’re an idiot” will be deleted.

Be proactive

Take responsibility for the quality of the conversations you participate in…Report posts you think violate these standards.

What we’ll do

We reserve the right to remove comments that breach these standards…”

Idly googling nice Mr Zanoni, I came across this twitter exchange, under Mr Zanoni’s new job title:

zanoniLet me confess. I’m not sure that I want to know what c—kspanking is. But it’s interesting that the newly-installed Community Manager of The Conversation, appointed to enforce higher standards on Conversation users, is tweeting things that – to put it mildly – don’t seem to raise the tone of online exchanges. And tweeting them, too, a bare 48 hours before publishing civility guidelines for The Conversation.

On at least one other matter, Zanoni’s perspective is unlikely to raise an eyebrow in arts faculty common rooms, the ABC or Fairfax:

zanoni bernardiI declare an interest. The Conversation people give Quadrant a hard time, unaware how easily our feelings are hurt. Here’s an example, “Tony Thomas, I’ve just had a look at Quadrant Online and am really shocked at the partisan outlook (rubbish) in this publication. Completely at odds with the reality of the science.” That’s why I’m being scrupulously fair in this piece.

At a time when mainstream media are hacking staff numbers to vestiges, the scale of The Conversation is disconcerting. It has Andrew Jaspan, the warmist ex-editor of The-Age as Executive Director, a managing editor, a chief operating officer, 18 sundry editors, an external relations director, the community manager, four developers, three in finance, an admin officer, and an apparently unfilled slot for a multi-media manager. Chair is Bendigo Bank supremo Robert Johanson, heading a 12-person board, plus there is a six-person editorial board. I’d guess the salary bill at $4m or so.

Plus there’s another 16 staff in the new UK office.

Jaspan laments that 12 of 39 Australian universities have so far declined to donate for yet more editors and suchlike. Hats off to UNSW Science, which recently flicked across $10,000, probably enough for the morning tea biscuits.

Strangely, donors to the site include Misha Ketchell, managing editor of The Conversation; Liz Minchin, Queensland editor; and Georgine Hall, just a lowly ‘Editor’. Some of the site’s most ferocious commentators are also listed as donors.

Andrew Jaspan invites personal questions, so last December I wrote to him,

“Hi Andrew, Does your organisation publish a public annual report and annual accounts? Have any of the 27 university members disclosed how much funding they are contributing to your group? If you are not legally obliged to make the accounts public, would it not be good to do so voluntarily?”

I still await his reply.

Key sponsors of The Conversation are founders CSIRO, and the universities Melbourne, WA, Monash and UTS. Strategic partners include toffy law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth, CBA and the Victorian Department of Business (eh? I thought we had a Liberal-led government in Victoria?).

Jaspan says the Australian site gets 1.4m unique visitors a month, thanks to content “which is curated by professional editors while together we make every effort to adhere to high standards and ethics.”

A swathe of The Conversation’s output (motto: Academic rigour, journalistic flair) is non-contentious – academics writing ‘pop’ pieces on their research into Pacific Islanders, maths education, beetle behavior, whatever.

But on climate, The Conversation is an exclusive playground for left and green authors. Skeptics, including myself, enjoy giving the authors and authors’ fans an occasional poke by reminding them about the halt to warming. This drives the site’s warmists berserk, such that even middle-of-the-road readers are appalled at the abuse levels and drop The Conversation from their reading list. (Some skeptic commenters – not me – can be rude too, although most try to be gentlefolk).

All the editors from Jaspan down, raise their hands in horror at the suggestion that their site has any Green/left tilt. Some fan of the site challenged anyone to inspect a day’s contribution of around 20 articles and say how many are leftist. I have risen to the challenge and give you the following “environment” headers ads they appeared on on February 13.

Is $15 a year really too much to pay for renewable energy?

Sure, let’s debate nuclear power – just don’t call it ‘low emission’

Global warming stalled by strong winds driving heat into oceans

Climate change to hit snow industry

Coasting flooding could cost billions

Most Australians over-estimate how “green” they are

We know who’s profiting from emissions – let’s bill them

Scrapping sea level protection puts Australian homes at risk.

A retired geologist/engineer Peter Lang recently submitted this comment:

“It cannot be good for the country or for academia to have such Left ideological bias in our academic institutions. It would be very wise for politically impartial universities to not support The Conversation until it can demonstrate it is truly balanced and impartial. I would also urge the remainder of our publicly funded universities to withdraw or reduce their level of funding until the Conversation cleans up its act.”

He suggested that the editors be selected to balance the lefties with righties, proposing my own stern boss, Quadrant’s Keith Windschuttle,as a good choice for senior editor. Managing Editor Misha Ketchell, whose impeccable pedigree has included stints as Media Watch’s chief researcher and at Crikey!, replied:

“The truth is we have no political position and try and source a range of voices and views … We certainly don’t look for views that skew in any particular direction, but nor do we discourage academics from expressing their honestly held views.”

Another complainant pointed to a feature by Matt McDonald, senior lecturer in International Relations at Queensland University, in the pre-election phase last year. It was headed, “Why Labor should fight the 2013 election on climate change”. To McDonald’s chagrin, and despite his Labor boosterism, Abbott got in, so McDonald then wrote a feature, “Abbott’s climate ‘diplomacy’ sends the wrong message”.

The daddy of all climate articles on The Conversation was posted last month from Auckland climate scientist Jim Salinger, excoriating NZ skeptics who took the NZ meteorology establishment to court over alleged data-manipulation. The skeptics eventually lost at the High Court, and liquidated a trust such that court costs were difficult to collect. This piece attracted 443 comments — and the most graphic sledging ever seen on The Conversation, I reckon. The site’s beleaguered moderators were reduced to deleting abusive comments sometimes in slabs of a dozen at a time. The fact that “Liar” remains on the thread, suggests that the removed comments must have been NSFW (not suitable for work). Rod Andrew, identified as “editor, teacher and engineer”, blogged recently, “If The Conversation keeps publishing slanging matches like this then it is doomed as a reputable website. In fact I think it’s probably past that stage already.”

One Conversation stalwart, and donor, is a certain Mike Hansen, who has flooded the site with 2450 comments since mid-2011. He has violently attacked the editors for allowing any comments from ‘climate cranks and conspiracy theorists’ to be published. “Your moderation policy is a disgrace,” he wrote. He urged The Conversation to block ‘deniers’ from the comment sections, praising the orthodox science blog Reddit Science for doing just that. The BBC and Fairfax newspapers have taken the same line, at least until recently.

One commenter analysed skeptics as being ‘idiots’, corrupt and/or mentally ill. He weakened his argument slightly by confessing that he was legally deemed to have a mental illness himself.

What probably touched a raw nerve at The Conversation was that warmist arguments were under steady challenge. As another warmist, Michael Wilbur Ham, (2166 comments) put it:

“So as far as I can see the deniers have had 15 very successful months on The Conversation where they have stymied any real discussion on the important issues. They are winning.” He urged The Conversation – apparently successfully – to “just say that posts critical of the basic science are off topic, encourage readers to report any such posts, and posts by trolls will quickly be deleted.”

Yet another, Ian Alexander (364 comments) wrote,

“As The Conversation editors, it is time you guys ‘grew a pair’. You know these pathetic old deniers are just here to spoil the thread yet you let them continue. You know the crap they peddle is lies and misinformation but you keep posting it. Are extra hits and posts that important to you?”

Gordon Angus Mackinlay, who describes himself as “a clinical psychologist”, wrote:

“I find a great deal of the comments made by people in regard to comments made by others extremely offensive. Such comments as here from ‘Developer’ “internet nut jobs, right wing lunies and others used by the fossil fuel lobby will be along shortly to obfuscate, deny, shift goal posts, do the straw man thing, and otherwise sow doubt and confusion” serve absolutely no purpose.”

It’s an accepted principle that private blog owners can run their comment sections as they like, whether they’re perspicacious Andrew Bolt or warmist John Quiggin. As Quiggin says, “ I publish it at my own expense and in my own time. It is not a public place. There is no automatic right to comment here.”

The Conversation, being publicly funded, may make no such assertion.

Tony Thomas is always polite

The IPCC’s foul-weather friends

November 12th 2013 print

The IPCC’s foul-weather friends

The mercury hasn’t risen for quite a while, at least 15 years, yet the warnings of imminent climate catastrophe continue apace — and so do the demands that the West pay, and pay heavily, for its sins of emission

Hooray for plain speech: the Australian government is rejecting any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.[i] It also rules out signing up for any more “climate change” fees at the Warsaw UN climate talk-fest this week.

The less-developed-countries with their well-developed begging-bowl techniques are seeking $US100b a year in special aid to deal with climate change. This is a step up from the $US30 billion new and extra climate money they got – or were supposed to get – from 2010-12 under UN “Fast-Start” financing. (First World donors do a good job scamming aid to divert it back to their own commercial providers).[ii]

Global warming in fact stopped about 17 years ago, and future temperature change may be up, down or sideways, depending on whom in the polyglot community of ‘climate scientists’ one talks to. Hence the LDCs don’t have a strong case for getting lots of our money to abate climate problems.

However, climate change is not the point. The point is the money. Don’t take my word for it, the climate people have ‘fessed up. The world’s investigative-reporter hordes have let those confessions go through unremarked.

Ex-Prime Minister John Howard belled the cat only last week. He said,

“The flood of emails coming from the University of East Anglia, the admitted errors regarding the Himalayan Glaciers, as well as the nakedly political agendas of some of those allegedly giving impartial scientific advice have degraded the image of the IPCC as the unchallengeable body of scientific experts on global warming. For example, Otto Edenhoper, Co-Chairman of the IPCC Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, demonstrated his commitment to impartial scientific enquiry with his remarkable statement, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Revealing his real agenda he has stated: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

I’ve been a connoisseur of such statements for half a decade. Here’s one from the top, from the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. In a 5000-word interview with Nature he said his “cause” was not the global warming threat but something more important.[iii]

“I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.” [emphasis added].

The “major structural changes” he wants involve transferring wealth from the West to developing countries — such as India — leading to a convergence of living standards. The West thereby pays for its past sins of emission. Climate Professor Fred Singer waspishly described this as shifting money “from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor ones”.[iv]

Howard’s suspicion’s about the IPCC’s integrity, were as usual, perspicacious.

Dr Pachauri’s IPCC was reviewed in 2010 by the InterAcademy Council in the wake of the Himalayan glaciers howlers in the 2007 IPCC report. The council’s recommendations included instituting a conflict-of-interest policy – surprisingly, a body influencing trillion-dollar programs had existed for 22 years without one. But Pachauri exempted all the scientists working on the Fifth Report (released last month) from conflict-of-interest guidelines because it wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to rope them into it retrospectively.[v]

How far ‘conflict of interest’ tests should go is a moot point, but I’d say that IPCC authors should at least be required to disclose any past payments from or affiliations to activist bodies, such as WWF. It was a WWF report, as it happened, that generated the Himalaya howlers.

Lo and behold, Pachauri’s own research institute TERI in New Delhi, last February accepted money from WWF to help finance a TERI conference, as exposed by investigative journalist Donna Laframboise. [vi] If we liken Pachauri to a judge presiding over a science trial, it would be as if a defendant interrupted his murder trial to offer a donation to the judge’s pigeon-fancier society – and the judge accepted it.

John Howard has remarked on the socialist agenda implicit in the climate scare. But the agenda’s roots go further, to some sort of world governance ambition.

Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General, wrote in April, 1999: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government … There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems… are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”[vii]

In the early years of the warming scare, before skepticism gained a real head of steam, some very unguarded comments were made in high places. (I have sourced the quotes, to weed out any fictional ones).

Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998, said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”[viii]

Stewart headed the Canadian delegation to the Kyoto climate change negotiations and signed the Kyoto Accord on behalf of Canada. Peter Menzies, of the Calgary Herald, quoted her as saying a year later that she still did not know what the cost of Kyoto would be to Canada. She guessed it would be a two to three percent hit to Canada’s GDP over 20 years, but as Menzies put it, “Oh heck, what’s a loss of $ 100 billion dollars between friends if it’s going to help those nice Indonesians?” Canada would also be helping China to industrialise. Menzies: “Well, if it’s good for the Commies, I say, why not? I mean, what harm have they ever done?”[ix]

The summiteers at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit were exceptional in candour. This summit got the global climate scare rolling. Former Senator Timothy Wirth, then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, told attendees: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”[x]

Wirth helped establish Al Gore’s 1988 Senate Science, Technology and Space hearings. Wirth later told PBS Frontline: “We called the Weather Bureau and found out what was historically the hottest day of the summer…so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it…we went in the night before and opened all the windows so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”[xi]

Wirth is the Vice Chair (until last January, President) of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund. The UNF, while supporting many good causes, also lobbies for funds for climate change zealotry.

Also speaking at the Rio conference was US Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the State Department. He agreed that the embryo Kyoto Protocol should be approved whether it had anything to do with climate change or not: ” A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”[xii]

Another old-timer from the climate industry is Maurice Strong, head of the United Nations Environment Program when it joined with the World Meteorological Foundation to set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was the leading figure in organizing the Rio Summit. At Rio, he suggested: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our job to bring that about?” [xiii]

Strong, co-father of the IPCC, didn’t exit the climate scene covered in glory. He was sidekick to then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. A 2005 inquiry found that in 1997, during the UN’s oil-for-food program, Strong had endorsed a USD1 million check to himself, from a crooked South Korean businessman via a Jordanian bank. Strong hastily stepped down from the UN and lit out to live in his Beijing apartment, in order to “sideline himself until the cloud was removed”. He claimed: “It just happened to coincide with the publicity surrounding my so-called nefarious activities. I had no involvement at all in Oil-for-Food … I just stayed out of it.”[xiv]

Annan delivered this touching tribute to Strong: “I am grateful that I had the benefit of your global vision and wise counsel on many critical issues… Your unwavering commitment to the environment, multilateralism and peaceful resolution of conflicts is especially appreciated.”[xv]

Annan’s son Kojo was a marketing consultant to a Swiss-based inspection company Cotecna, which in 1998 won a $4.8m contract under the program. Kojo successfully sued the London Sunday Times for claiming he had confessed to wrong doing.

Kofi Annan was succeeded as UN Secretary-General by Ban Ki-moon, whom our ex-Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd used to call “Spanky Banky”, according to Barrie Cassidy’s book Party Thieves. Mr Ban does deserve a spanking for lusting after world hegemony. In the lead-up to the dud 2009 Copenhagen summit, he urged: ”A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed.”[xvi]

The mainstream media has always gone along with the official scares.

Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist and former public relations official for the US Environmental Protection Agency, ‘fessed up in 1988: “We routinely wrote scare stories…Our press reports were more or less true…We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.”[xvii]

Ecologist Dr Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace. He eventually parted ways and is now a source of such quotes as:

“We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and its not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

Moore was asked who is promoting man-made climate fears and what are their motives? He replied:

“Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue…

“There are many thousands of scientists’ who reject man-made global warming fears…It’s all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object.”[xviii]

True believers think the IPCC is run by the world’s top scientists, but the reality, as John Howard has twigged, is quite different (ignoring that national politicians on the IPCC have the final say over scientists anyway). The top-tier IPCC Bureau oversees all IPCC publications. Its vice-chairs currently include a rep from Sierra Leone; and the Working Group 111 has co-chairs from Cuba and Mali, enough said.

Vice-chairs of Working Groups include persons from Morocco, Iran, Malaysia, Madagascar, Maldives (huh?), Peru, Sudan, and Mexico. The 14-member Task Force of National Greenhouse Gas Inventories includes persons from Zimbabwe (yes, you read that correctly), Bulgaria, Syria (yes, Syria), Tanzania, Thailand and Indonesia. Why? Because these plum science jobs have to be rationed out to both LDCs and people of the feminine gender, never mind screening in only top scientists.

The IPCC cast has included some odd thinkers. One of them is Australia’s own Emeritus Professor of Medicine David Shearman, an IPCC assessor for the third and fourth reports and founder of Doctors for the Environment Australia. In a book co-authored with a Joseph Smith in 2007 (the same year as the IPCC fourth report), they wrote:

Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task. [p. 134][xix][xx]

My favorite quote, however, is this one:

“In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa.”

The author: Osama bin Laden.[xxi]

Tony Thomas likes it hot, or at least, warmer. He blogs at tthomas061.wordpress.com

[i] The Australian, Nov 11, 2013

[ii] http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/7987-mobilising-international-climate-finance-lessons-fast-start-finance-period

[iii] http://www.webcitation.org/5zblp2dJC

[iv][iv] http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_end_of_the_ipcc.html

[v] http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/08/05/what-would-a-bad-job-look-like/

[vi] http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/02/04/pachauri-takes-wwf-money/

[vii] http://tinyurl.com/pz8frep

[viii] http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

[ix] http://junksciencearchive.com/dec98/menzies.html

[x] http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

[xi] http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/

[xii] http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

[xiii] http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

[xiv] Rosett, Claudia (October 11, 2008). “Maurice Strong: The U.N.’s Man of Mystery – WSJ.com”. online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

[xv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

[xvi] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=2&

[xvii] http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/12220777/dead-fish-red-herrings-how-epa-pollutes-news

[xviii] http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/01/21/greenpeace-cofounder-dr-patrick-moore-questions-manmade-global-warming-calls-it-obviously-a-natural-phenomenon/

[xix] The Climate change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. David Shearman & Joseph Wayne Smith (Praeger Publishing: Wesport, 2007).